Engineering capability assessment only I'd say.
Of course this doesn't suggest the decadal survey will approve such a mission.Just that's it's possible.Maybe because it will be possible the next survey will have to study the possibility of doing such missions.
The possibility of that kind of money being spent on planetary probes is small and this might be something the article is missing?
Yeah Chris, don't listen to launch vehicle people, talk to Planetary Scientists. Oh, but don't go to certain ones, go to the ones who hate large rockets.Jeez, you guys are transparent.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 01/07/2012 11:17 pm"Carolyn Porco: Planetary scientist, leader of the Cassini imaging team, director of CICLOPS, & author-to-be" retweeted the article, saying "Looks like these guys (@nasaspaceflight) read my NYT OpEd http://nyti.ms/tEYjJF abt using SLS (aka AresV) 4 deep space http://bit.ly/zaQkUc" - so maybe that would be a good starting point to give her a buzz?I'd start by reading the NRC's "Launching Science" report, cited earlier. Then look at the planetary decadal survey. Then look at the decadal survey mission studies.And I wouldn't go to Porco. Go to somebody currently involved in Europa mission studies. JPL public affairs can give you names, but you can stumble across an obvious one if you ask the question of who is in charge of JPL's Europa program...And don't start it from the SLS angle, because it's just not legit. That's not what the planetary science program is doing and not how they look at it--they need real rockets, missions that can be done using current technology, and missions that don't cost more than (say) $3 billion. Most importantly, they are not the top priority mission in the decadal survey. In addition, they are trying to reduce the cost of their mission, not make it even bigger. Start with "what are you currently doing, and what would a future Europa exploration campaign look like?"And you might take a look here:http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/Oct2011/lander_forum_presentations/
"Carolyn Porco: Planetary scientist, leader of the Cassini imaging team, director of CICLOPS, & author-to-be" retweeted the article, saying "Looks like these guys (@nasaspaceflight) read my NYT OpEd http://nyti.ms/tEYjJF abt using SLS (aka AresV) 4 deep space http://bit.ly/zaQkUc" - so maybe that would be a good starting point to give her a buzz?
Gee,Somebody emailed a link to this article to Ms. Porco yesterday, I wonder who did that? I am needling her to register and participate on the forum. I will also send he a link to this thread to further encourage her.Chris, consider her buzzed.
Copy! Downloaded the presentations and will give them a good read. Copy on the approach. I suppose I could "include" the SLS angle, by asking what they think of the suggestion in the Con Ops. But yeah, I wouldn't head into that wearing a SLS hat for a SLS article. I'd be interested in a Europa mission (how's, when's, etc.) even if SLS hadn't been mentioned....so that would be the primary interest/main angle. We are - after all - trying to broaden out with coverage of the deep space missions.I'll try JPL PAO and see if they can arrange something.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/sls-capability-europa-lander-capability-enceladus-sample-return/More roadmap fun!
Here's the thing that the article completely missed--there is no mission role for this....a number of people posting in this thread, seem to think that these Europa and Enceladus missions are legitimate. They're not. They're not planned, they're not approved, they're not even being studied for SLS. The legitimate list of missions that NASA can consider is contained in the planetary science decadal survey......a bunch of rocket vehicle guys were producing a study of what their cool rocket could do, and so they asked around about challenging missions to the planets, and somebody mentioned a Europa lander and an Enceladus sample return, so the rocket guys--let me repeat that for emphasis--THE ROCKET GUYS--inserted that into their document...They want the cheapest rocket they can get to perform the basic mission.
If Sen Shelby can garner support to launch an SLS to Saturn who cares about the scientific practicality? Even the people who read the decadal survey are going to think that is cool.
It would seem that an advanced SLS liquid booster would make an interesting launch platform on its own. It would be more powerful than Ares I. If multiple options were considered in the original design phase, it seems that this rocket (as a single core) could possibly add up to 8 solids (Aerojet is currently upgrading its 67' SRB) as needed, cluster in CCB configurations of 3 to 7 cores, all in addition to serving as a tandem booster on SLS. It would in some sense be filling the role of Atlas V Phase II and more. Would not such a vehicle be able to fill some of the mission roles described in this thread?When it's time for the advanced booster design competition, I would think including such options in their proposals would give ULA (and possibly others) an added edge over ATK with their advanced solids.
The way it usually works is that you start with the mission, design a spacecraft, and then figure out what rocket you need, adjusting the parameters based upon your budget (meaning trying to find the cheapest spacecraft and rocket that will perform the mission). You don't start with a rocket and then figure out what you can put on it.
They want the cheapest rocket they can get to perform the basic mission.
ULA only exists to produce EELV's and not advance boosters for other vehicles. Boeing and/or LM would probably want to do that themselves.
Apollo/Saturn V was an example of the first and Shuttle an example of the second.
Quote from: BlackstarThe way it usually works is that you start with the mission, design a spacecraft, and then figure out what rocket you need, adjusting the parameters based upon your budget (meaning trying to find the cheapest spacecraft and rocket that will perform the mission). You don't start with a rocket and then figure out what you can put on it.This is not true: read Prof. Porco's Op-Ed article. There are all kinds of missions that would be enabled by heavier mass probes that require beefy rockets to get into space.