Quote from: deadman1204 on 04/02/2024 02:56 pmI'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESABTW, Lori Glaze has stated repeatedly that the production facilities are not limiting the rate of RTGs, which can be ramped up or down with mission demand.The lack of funding for missions that would use RTGs is the limiting factor on RTG production.
I'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESA
Quote from: vjkane on 04/02/2024 04:39 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 04/02/2024 02:56 pmI'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESABTW, Lori Glaze has stated repeatedly that the production facilities are not limiting the rate of RTGs, which can be ramped up or down with mission demand.The lack of funding for missions that would use RTGs is the limiting factor on RTG production.No, it's not the long way. If more RTGs were produced, NASA doesn't have the money to design, build, launch, and manage the missions that would use them.RTG production rate is limiting the missions NASA flies. It's sort of like the price of gas - you care, but it is secondary to whether or not you can afford to buy a car in the first place. NASA can't afford the car.Ehh... isn't that the long way of saying we don't/won't have all the PU we need? Sure it can be "ramped up", not only will that ALWAYS go slower and cost WAY MORE than expected, but it requires the money to begin with.Instead, we simply won't start missions that require a significant increase, because everyone knows the budget won't exist for it.
Ehh... isn't that the long way of saying we don't/won't have all the PU we need? Sure it can be "ramped up", not only will that ALWAYS go slower and cost WAY MORE than expected, but it requires the money to begin with.Instead, we simply won't start missions that require a significant increase, because everyone knows the budget won't exist for it.
if ESA does indeed go with an Enceladus orbilander as their flagship mission, what do you think NASA will choose are their top priority mission after Uranus, since for them it was also Enceladus? Not sure if there was another mission in the ranking just below that one?
Quote from: skizzo on 04/07/2024 04:32 pmif ESA does indeed go with an Enceladus orbilander as their flagship mission, what do you think NASA will choose are their top priority mission after Uranus, since for them it was also Enceladus? Not sure if there was another mission in the ranking just below that one?I think that question will be answered by the next Decadal Survey, which should start about 2030 and be published about 2032. There seems to be more priorities than budget remaining from the last one for that question to be formally answered before then.For Enceladus and NASA, NASA could select a New Frontiers Enceladus multi-flyby mission that would arrive approximately a decade before the European mission. While it might seem like competition, the European mission would benefit from learning more about Enceladus.I also expect that ESA and NASA will talk about collaboration on the ESA Voyage 2050 mission. They have done so on possible Uranus missions and are collaborating on many. The ideas in the ESA document for an Enceladus mission are ambitious. They may be far more doable with collaboration.
