Question for Blackstar and others:If SLS is not a game changer for planetary studies then please speculate on what other technology or political factors might be a game changer. From a taxpayer's perspective I agree that the decadal survey process and the competitive way teams go after missions works well. But what factors would provide the most leverage in a more ambitious planetary exploration plan? I realize more money is a big one. But how would you spend it?More ambitious being defined as:Simultaneously flying: Europa/Jupiter orbiter, Titan boat, Uranus orbiter or the equivalent of these three missions
2. Now I see my credentials have actually been called into question by someone named ugordon. So, tell me urgordon, what are YOUR credentials? Who are you? For whom do you work? Why should we even be listening to you at all? Really...why don't you identify yourself. Everyone knows who I am; it's only fair others don't hide behind false names.
Oh, I forgot to add..... anyone who described me as someone who will `tow (sic) the party line' is completely ignorant of all facts in this matter, including proper use of that expression. I have the reputation for being anything but, which makes this assertion laughable.
Sorry if this is somewhat changing the topic, or going back to an old topic, but I was asked by one of you to join this discussion, especially since I have been mentioned in it. And so here I am.From what I can glean from it, this is a typical internet melee, with folks talking over each other, conflating myriad issues, with one or two veiled ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure.So, let me say this:1. There are scientific issues and there are programmatic issues in discussing plans for spaceflight, and your discussion is conflating the two. My OpEd from Feb 2007 was merely pointing out the obvious: how the planetary exploration program would be vastly improved if we had a superior heavy launch capability. The human flight program has severely suffered from not having such a vehicle, but I wanted to point out something that today's planetary scientists apparently don't often consider but what the older generation of planetary scientists has long lamented: the loss of the Saturn V and what the planetary exploration program might have looked like had we had that kind of capability to launch our spacecraft to remote destinations.I also pointed out today's meager NASA budget compared to the Apollo-era budget and what we would need to really conduct such a planetary exploration program, which is not what we have now.Was the vision I painted unrealistic, given today's budgets? Of course it was. But to have the kind of planetary program we oldsters long dreamed of, we would need advanced launch and propulsion capabilities. And I"m glad that the article I was alerted to, about the SLS, mentioned those possibilities (maybe deriving from the vision I presented in my OpEd?) because they have all but been forgotten. The bottom line is: We could do a LOT.2. Now I see my credentials have actually been called into question by someone named ugordon. So, tell me urgordon, what are YOUR credentials? Who are you? For whom do you work? Why should we even be listening to you at all? Really...why don't you identify yourself. Everyone knows who I am; it's only fair others don't hide behind false names.As far as my credentials in mission design are concerned, other than teaching celestial mechanics for 10 years at the University of Arizona, I am indeed NOT a mission designer by trade. However, I was the Vice-Chair of the Solar System Decadal Survey back in 2001/2, have sat on way too many NASA committees where mission designs were discussed, and I am quite familiar with the way these things go. I also am the Co-Chair of the Enceladus Focus Group, and we have at every meeting a mission designer from JPL tell us what kind of missions are possible to return to and orbit Enceladus, and from there land on its surface. Finally, in writing my OpEd, I communicated extensively with the mission designers at JPL. And it was based on their work that I called out what kinds of payloads one could carry to, say, Saturn or Pluto if we had available to us the capability expected for the Ares V (and now, I presume, the SLS).So, I know what I'm talking about and I rest my case. [Incidentally, Bob Pappalardo, a good friend of mine and a great guy, is no more an "authority" on mission designs than any other planetary scientist involved in spaceflight that I know. He's of course very knowledgeable about, and an authority in, what JPL is considering for exploration of Europa.]3. About the present decadal survey, the main reason why it looks the way it does (as I've been told by its participants) is that the group was severely limited in budget and that was a big factor in determining the mission line-up. Again (as is often the case), scientific priorities trumped by programmatic constraints, which has given us the feeble planetary program we have today.4. About missions in particular...I too agree it will be a long time before we see a Europa lander. Europa was the highest priority flagship called out in the 2001/2 Decadal Survey -- and I personally promoted it heavily -- entirely because of its astrobiological potential. BUT...we also stated in that Survey that the results from Cassini could change those plans, and in my mind, they have. A far better, far easier target for investigating the possibility of an extraterrestrical habitable zone is Enceladus, where the operative word is `accessibility'. Anything we would need to sample is being ejected out of its interior into space, and all we need to do is adequately sample that material, far preferably with an orbiter than eventually becomes a lander so we can conduct even more science, and we will have done what NASA has been claiming it wants to do for a long time now. It's even easier to do than at Mars. Getting rid of delta-V is the game in getting into orbit around Enceladus, and repeated flybys of moons like Titan and Rhea, the largest Saturnian moons, to bleed off delta-V make an Enceladus mission a real possibility. [Absent in-situ analysis capability and prolonged investigation, I'm not a fan of a Sample Return mission. But as an added feature of a full-blown Enceladus orbiter and/or lander mission, sample return would be ideal. Again, though, ideal is in today's climate very likely not possible.]I, in fact, have been invited by Jim Green to go speak to him about Enceladus science and will be leaving for DC tomorrow. What will actually happen as far as mission line-ups go is probably anybody's guess, and I'll leave it to you folks to keep discussing it. But right now, I gotta get back to work!Cheers,Carolyn Porco
Sorry if this is somewhat changing the topic, or going back to an old topic, but I was asked by one of you to join this discussion, especially since I have been mentioned in it. And so here I am.From what I can glean from it, this is a typical internet melee, with folks talking over each other, conflating myriad issues, with one or two veiled ad hominem attacks thrown in for good measure.
Please summarize what BlackStar said in this thread; I do not have the time to digest all of it, by any means, and I don't want to say I agree or disagree until I know what the gist of his/her comments was.And who is BlackStar? I don't like debating folks when I don't even know who they are.
Why hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?
Ok. I did read over some of the comments. Here's the scoop:. The missions and mission designs that planetary scientists consider are COMPLETELY determined by the types of rockets that are available. So, yes, the capability of the rocket DOES come before the mission design and the payload determination. It is only because a large rocket doesn't currently exist and funding is woefully tight that missions need to use the smallest rocket possible (to preserve capital for the payload). In this sense, what BlackStar says is true: Planetary scientists want cheap rockets. . BUT....if there were a large rocket available and finances to boot, it would be a game changer in the planetary exploration program. And so, to discuss what could be done with such a rocket is a GOOD thing to do and to keep doing, in my opinion, because it keeps our sights on what could and would be possible. That's why I wrote my OpEd: to remind everyone of what we might be doing if we would commit to it. In short, 'tis true you don't need a Boeing 787 to get from NY to LA; you can use a horse and buggy instead. But you can do so much more and get there so much faster if you DID have a 787. Bottom line: If we want a vigorous planetary exploration program, which we don't have now because the political will, and therefore the finances, are not there, we could really use a heavy launch vehicle.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2012 07:12 pmWhy hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.
Bottom line: If we want a vigorous planetary exploration program, which we don't have now because the political will, and therefore the finances, are not there, we could really use a heavy launch vehicle.
Quote from: carolyn on 01/09/2012 07:14 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 01/09/2012 07:12 pmWhy hasn't the Delta IV Heavy been used for planetary missions, then?As I said, to preserve limited capital for payloads.Okay, so how in heck would pursuing a $XX billion development effort for SLS based on arguments like in your op-ed in spite of a flat NASA budget help the situation at all?It sounds to me like it'd make the situation much worse instead of better. And either the planetary mission has to pay for it or another part of NASA (which has seen effectively a flat budget, especially under the Congress which supposedly supports SLS so much that they are lowering NASA's budget compared to the PBR to pay for it) is effectively acting as a completely subsidized launch provider for government payloads. This would also act to effectively increase the cost of launches for smaller missions which wouldn't use SLS.
Quote from: TomH on 01/09/2012 03:10 amAnd it really is too bad that a group of about 4 particular senators seem to think the human spaceflight program is their own private source of pork rather than something for the scientists to direct. It is also pretty pathetic that a certain group of legislators believe they can simply legislate climate change out of existence and prohibit NASA from studying it. Extremist politicians *@^&!>#<%/$ grrrrrr. Sorry, end rant. To coin Blackstar, don't believe what you read in op-eds.....because the above reads like one of those "Senate Launch System" keyboard bashing episodes. Let's keep the thread out of the gutter.To expand - given it needs stating again - the Senate Bill (S. 3729) - which reversed FY2011 budget proposal was passed by a vote ratio of 3:1. The "four Senators" (I assume Sen. Nelson and Sen. Hutchison etc.) Did NOT design SLS, they provided documented notes of guidance based on what they were told would work best.And the "we could do everything with medium launchers" is a valid argument, but lost at the RACs (documented) - to which there are (opinionated) claims that was fixed, but I'm yet to see any evidence of that.Now people are entitled to voice opinions that they'd rather NASA remained in LEO and studied "Climate Change" (Earth Observation), or wish to see SLS scrapped, hoping the funding would be diverted into other programs (when that is claimed to be wishful thinking/doubtful). However - despite knowing very little about politics - even I know other branches of NASA wish they had the HSF budget, we've seen it around Shuttle, and now SLS is the new target.I'd claim we're seeing raise its head here, and no amount of shouting or ranting is going to change that. So let's keep this focused on THESE missions outlined in the Con Ops, because that was all a valid and interesting conversation from both sides of the fence.
And it really is too bad that a group of about 4 particular senators seem to think the human spaceflight program is their own private source of pork rather than something for the scientists to direct. It is also pretty pathetic that a certain group of legislators believe they can simply legislate climate change out of existence and prohibit NASA from studying it. Extremist politicians *@^&!>#<%/$ grrrrrr. Sorry, end rant.
I was a study director on the decadal survey, involved in the entire process.