Author Topic: JIMO circa 1961  (Read 11614 times)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
JIMO circa 1961
« on: 12/31/2007 01:23 am »
I found a very interesting article on the NTRS; basically, it's a 1961 JPL proposal for a mission that's pretty darn close to what JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) became, using nuclear electric propulsion to do a quick transit to Jupiter and capture into orbit. He never mentions the launcher specifically, but the mass in LEO (47,300 lbs) is exactly the expected performance of the Saturn C-2....

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=766882&id=2&qs=Ne%3D20%26Ntt%3Dnuclear%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D269%2B211%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1

Simon ;)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #1 on: 12/31/2007 03:34 am »
Look up SNAP-8 on the NTRS.  There's a document on that which refers to a similar mission.

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #2 on: 02/28/2011 02:37 pm »
I was intrigued so I decided to follow the link but now it seems to point to a document entitled: "A bibliography of the saturn system" :(

I believe I have managed to relocate the document in the OP. The launch vehicle illustrated on page 16 of the report does look like artists impressions of the three stage Saturn C-2.

The Conceptual Design of a Nuclear-Electric Power Spacecraft for the Exploration of Jupiter

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630043252_1963043252.pdf
« Last Edit: 02/28/2011 11:03 pm by Graham2001 »

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #3 on: 03/01/2011 03:51 am »
I've located a related document on the NTRS that might clear up the booster issue.

It discusses possible power requirements for Nuclear-Electric (Ion engine) missions to Jupiter and Mars.

The launchers are simply revered to as 'Boost Vehicles' designated I, Ia, II & III (eg Saturn I, Saturn Ia(?), Saturn II, Saturn III).

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630011373_1963011373.pdf

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #4 on: 03/01/2011 08:38 pm »
Yeah, that's the original document; sorry I didn't provide a proper link before.

I'm not sure what "Saturn Ia" could refer to; my guess would be a Saturn I with a Centaur (S-V) stage on top...

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #5 on: 03/02/2011 01:31 am »
Yeah, that's the original document; sorry I didn't provide a proper link before.

I'm not sure what "Saturn Ia" could refer to; my guess would be a Saturn I with a Centaur (S-V) stage on top...

I wasn't sure what the Ia was either, it could the the Saturn I/Centaur or it could simply be a reference to the Block II Saturn Is.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #6 on: 03/02/2011 02:47 am »
My guess:

I:    Saturn A-1 (S-I + Titan I 1st stage + Centaur)
Ia:   Block II Saturn I (S-I + S-IV + Centaur)
II:   Saturn C-2
III:  An eight-F-1 Nova

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #7 on: 03/02/2011 12:55 pm »
Somewhere buried on my hard drive is the JIMO final report.  If I find it (it was on an obscure JPL website), I will post it here.  Buried deep in the report is the price tag, which was over $20 billion.

Offline truth is life

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #8 on: 03/02/2011 09:34 pm »
Somewhere buried on my hard drive is the JIMO final report.  If I find it (it was on an obscure JPL website), I will post it here.  Buried deep in the report is the price tag, which was over $20 billion.

I, for one, would be very interested in that.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #9 on: 03/03/2011 12:50 am »
Somewhere buried on my hard drive is the JIMO final report.  If I find it (it was on an obscure JPL website), I will post it here.  Buried deep in the report is the price tag, which was over $20 billion.

What they should have done was have some overlap with manned space flight and use the exploration program to fund the reactor development.

The reactor in JIMO for example could be very similar to a reactor used on the lunar surface and be a sub scale test of what a NEP Mars mission would use.

In this case the actual cost of the mission ends up much lower then 20 Billion as most of the R&D costs are amortized elsewhere.

But CxP was poorly executed and the HSF and unmanned parts of NASA were put at odds with each other which should not have been the case.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2011 12:53 am by Patchouli »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #10 on: 03/03/2011 02:01 am »
My guess:

I:    Saturn A-1 (S-I + Titan I 1st stage + Centaur)
Ia:   Block II Saturn I (S-I + S-IV + Centaur)
II:   Saturn C-2
III:  An eight-F-1 Nova

The attached NASA launch-vehicle handbook from 1961 puts the capability of the two-stage Saturn C-1 (S-I + S-IV, no Centaur) at about 15,000 lb to 300 nmi. circular, the exact figure depending on the trajectory used and on whether first-stage engine-out capability is assumed (see p. 78 of the PDF).  I therefore now presume that Vehicle IA is the two-stage Saturn C-1.  I probably should have guessed in the first place that a third stage wouldn't be of much help in reaching a relatively low orbit.  Vehicle I is probably a two-stage Saturn A-1 (S-I + Titan I first stage).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2011 02:03 am by Proponent »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #11 on: 03/03/2011 12:53 pm »
1-What they should have done was have some overlap with manned space flight and use the exploration program to fund the reactor development.

2-In this case the actual cost of the mission ends up much lower then 20 Billion as most of the R&D costs are amortized elsewhere.

3-But CxP was poorly executed and the HSF and unmanned parts of NASA were put at odds with each other which should not have been the case.

1-They did.

2-It's still bloody expensive.

3-JIMO predated CxP.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #12 on: 03/04/2011 04:00 am »
Here is the Prometheus Final Report.

Notice that buried on page 178 is the fun stuff:

Total  $16.317 BILLION
Launch System $5.161 BILLION


 

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #13 on: 03/04/2011 10:53 am »
Here is the Prometheus Final Report.
Notice that buried on page 178 is the fun stuff:
Total  $16.317 BILLION
Launch System $5.161 BILLION
    And that's Total /not/ counting the launch costs. $4.2 billion to develop the 200 kWe reactor module, and another $4.8 billion for the rest of the support spacecraft.
    What is remarkable is that the science instrumentation is another $3.6 billion, despite riding on a large, nuclear powered vehicle launched by several heavy-lifters. Heavy lift doesn't magically make the science probe costs evaporate.

    (And although launch vehicles do not captivate you, Blackstar, it's interesting to read about the genesis of the EELV Phase I and II vehicles, described briefly in the introduction of [BK2010].)

   Thanks for this report. I always wondered what happened to JIMO and Prometheus, as much as we want a Jovian lunar orbiter. The idea of a basic trans-Jovian NEP spacecraft architecture that could be flown in multiple copies to cumulatively orbit outer planetary moons or visit the Kupier belt is heady stuff.

    Do I read pg.179 correctly that NASA spent almost a $half-billion before cancellation? $464 million / 775 FTE-man-years is $600 thousand per FTE-man-year. How does that make sense if almost all the work was  (presumably) analysis, hence only salaries + benefits, not metal-bending?

    -Alex

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #14 on: 03/04/2011 11:10 am »
    Do I read pg.179 correctly that NASA spent almost a $half-billion before cancellation? $464 million / 775 FTE-man-years is $600 thousand per FTE-man-year. How does that make sense if almost all the work was  (presumably) analysis, hence only salaries + benefits, not metal-bending?

The $5 billion I posted was the launch side.

The half billion in development is correct.  A lot of that was spent on developing rad-hardened components.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #15 on: 03/04/2011 03:12 pm »
The half billion in development is correct.  A lot of that was spent on developing rad-hardened components.

Which are still needed for JIMO's spiritual successor, JEO, as the real hard radiation is from the Jovian magnetosphere, not any reactor. Indeed, the cost of the super-rad-hard components is part of the reason why the JEO project is looking to be at death's door (in addition to using nearly all the Plutonium on the planet and having an obscenely long approval-to-science timeline).

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #16 on: 03/04/2011 03:21 pm »
Did any usable hardware come out of the 0.5 B or was it all R&D?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #17 on: 03/05/2011 12:45 am »
Did any usable hardware come out of the 0.5 B or was it all R&D?

It was R&D, but they learned a lot about rad-hardening components.  At least JPL claims that they did. 

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #18 on: 03/05/2011 12:46 am »
The half billion in development is correct.  A lot of that was spent on developing rad-hardened components.

Which are still needed for JIMO's spiritual successor, JEO, as the real hard radiation is from the Jovian magnetosphere, not any reactor. Indeed, the cost of the super-rad-hard components is part of the reason why the JEO project is looking to be at death's door (in addition to using nearly all the Plutonium on the planet and having an obscenely long approval-to-science timeline).

You'll hear more Monday night. 

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: JIMO circa 1961
« Reply #19 on: 06/01/2012 09:10 am »
While searching the NTRS I found this very familiar looking 1963, Nuclear Space Cruiser...

See:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630011468_1963011468.pdf
« Last Edit: 06/01/2012 09:11 am by Graham2001 »

Tags:
 

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