Author Topic: Proposed Europa Missions  (Read 640890 times)

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #480 on: 10/04/2014 09:07 pm »
Er, yeah, still doesn't work like that when it comes to creating new programs (as opposed to stuffing money into an ongoing project).

Look, I know the guy who is in charge of the planetary program. He has said in public on several occasions that he cannot pursue a new program without a formal new program start from OMB. Just cannot do it. For starters, the money provided by Congress is only there for one year (technically, they usually have two years to spend it), without any promise of further money. Thus, NASA cannot sign contracts for programs that would require many years to pay for them. Go ask him.

All NASA programs are part of the discretionary budget, which is funded on an annual basis. Are you suggesting that NASA can't sign contracts for long term projects because the funds for a year out are not there? How did NASA sign a contract with Boeing and SpaceX for crew access to ISS when no funds have been appropriated? I presume contracts have the ability to be cancelled. If funds are zeroed out in the future, as so often occurs for NASA programs, the contract is cancelled.

In fact, there is actually still money left over in the Europa account from when Congress first appropriated it. That's because it was a huge chunk of money for "studies" and there's only so much that you can spend on studies without actually bending metal. It's a rather sloppy and inefficient way to run a program (in part because that money is not free, but is being taken from other things that NASA has on its plate, like another New Frontiers mission). What it does do, however, is send a message to the OMB that if OMB doesn't get in front of the horse on a Europa mission, it will continue to be behind the horse on a Europa mission, and nobody really wants to be behind the horse.

The joint Omnibus spending bill in 2013 had Planetary Science funded at 127 million over the administration's request. Of that 127 million, 80 million was set aside for Europa "formulation" work. I don't see how this could be seen as taking away funds from other programs when not even counting this money, it was above the administration's request. Stretching the defination of "formulation" to include detailed design, build and test activities is more consistent with the law than effectively impounding the funds which can't be reconciled at all.

Quote
When NASA has a real program for building a Europa Clipper you will know it because they will talk about it as a development program. They don't have it now, and Congress cannot make it happen on its own.

Perhaps taking the example that caused Congress and the Supreme Court to strip the President of the impounding power could be illustrative.

Quote
And overridden it was. On October 18, 1972, first the Senate, then the House overrode Nixon's veto and the bill became law. After the veto override, Nixon refused to spend the money appropriated by Congress, using his presidential powers to impound half of the money. For a time, members of the House considered impeachment proceedings against Nixon and his actions were eventually challenged in the Supreme Court. In Train v. City of New York (1975), the court ruled "that the president had no authority to withhold funds provided by Congress in the Clean Water Act of 1972," stating essentially, "The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment." In addition, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provided a means of controlling the President's ability to impound funds for programs that they don't support.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-madel/nixons-clean-water-act-im_b_1372740.html

You suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to create a program. The example with the Clean Water Act strongly suggests that the President doesn't have the power not to implement programs funded by Congress.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #481 on: 10/05/2014 05:09 pm »

 How did NASA sign a contract with Boeing and SpaceX for crew access to ISS when no funds have been appropriated?


Because of the contract structure, they have not obligated the gov't for any real money.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #482 on: 10/05/2014 08:30 pm »
From Stephen Clark Tweeter at IAC2014

Quote
Stephen Clark @StephenClark1
APL's Thomas Magner: We've selected solar power for the Europa Clipper mission, baselined for launch on SLS in June 2022. #IAC2014

Let's presume what Thomas Magner divulged from the concept review is true or at least heavily favored.  Would going solar benefit a Europa spacecraft enough to out-weigh nuclear?  Is SLS wiser to use than Atlas V?  Both are options I could get behind personally, but I know there's always a downside to everything.  Let's debate...

"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #483 on: 10/05/2014 11:13 pm »
Since I didn't new this was so preliminary, I assumed that solar would have been chose, in part to avoid nuclear rating the SLS. Also, since they don't have to go through Venus orbit, they don't have to rate the panels and heat rejection system for anything hotter than Earth. And since they are leaving fast, they could tolerate some degradation at Earth orbit.
The only issue is that Atlas V as backup means a lot of adaptation on those systems.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #484 on: 10/07/2014 05:42 am »

The SLS thing is not at all assured. They have studied it because they were _told_ to study it. But I know a lot of people in the planetary program who just roll their eyes whenever it comes up. That's not because it is a bad engineering choice, but because they think the politics is very sketchy. Nobody wants to go down that road and get burned.


We've been down the road where planetary missions were tied to a new launch system.  NASA didn't pursue a Voyager Uranus probe mission because they were phasing out the Titan launch system and the shuttle wouldn't be ready in time.  We all know the story of how Galileo was repeatedly delayed because of its dependence on the shuttle.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #485 on: 10/07/2014 02:34 pm »
Blackstar, when would you expect an Europa Clipper Authorization to Start? I'm guessing "not with this OMB". But that's gonna change soon enough.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #486 on: 10/08/2014 05:05 pm »
Jeff Foust reports from IAC in Toronto:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42121europa-clipper-opts-for-solar-power-over-nuclear

Quote
In an Oct. 3 presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress here, Europa Clipper deputy project manager Thomas Magner of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said that using large solar panels for the mission was both technically viable and less expensive than a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).

EC is an APL project?
« Last Edit: 10/08/2014 05:05 pm by arachnitect »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #487 on: 10/08/2014 10:03 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42121europa-clipper-opts-for-solar-power-over-nuclear

Quote
In an Oct. 3 presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress here, Europa Clipper deputy project manager Thomas Magner of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said that using large solar panels for the mission was both technically viable and less expensive than a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).

Saw that article too, and it's great to see a news update that confirms what Stephen Clark heard about earlier (my apologies to him if I came off a bit harsh).

So whatever degradation the panels may endure, apparently they decided it's easier to handle versus acquiring plutonium, the paperwork to utilize it, and the environmental risks to both Europa and Earth.  At least there won't be any no-nuke-protestors like there were for Galileo and Cassini.  I've never been fond of nuclear power, but it is steadfast and necessary in the deeper parts of the solar system; on that note I'd hope whatever plutonium that isn't used for Mars 2020 can be applied to a new outer planet mission (my guess would be to either Saturn's moons or Uranus).

So that leaves two further factors for a new Europa mission: official funding (and between the forthcoming Congressional elections and the next Presidential one this is definitely a wild card not to underestimate) and choice of launch vehicle. 

Going by what Magner stated from APL, the SLS is recognized as an option but, as Blackstar elucidated upon, scientists likely find it more a political ploy than an vehicle at this point.  Still, it wouldn't be the first time politics came into play; recall Galileo and Magellan and their ties to the shuttle.  As complicated as that relationship was, it simultaneously preserved them (they were the only major planetary missions launched in the '80s after all).  The SLS, more so under a new administration, will need to justify its development and utility.  Considering EC was examined alongside ARM, that implies there already are political currents that will nudge spacecraft towards SLS.  Ultimately however, I would call it a 50/50 chance with Atlas V as well (then again, with politics in play, there could be frowns regarding 'relying on Russian technology'). 

It is still too soon to be certain.  With the OPAG having a meeting next February, I believe that is when we'll get firmer answers on the nature of a Europa mission.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #488 on: 10/08/2014 10:18 pm »

The SLS thing is not at all assured. They have studied it because they were _told_ to study it. But I know a lot of people in the planetary program who just roll their eyes whenever it comes up. That's not because it is a bad engineering choice, but because they think the politics is very sketchy. Nobody wants to go down that road and get burned.


We've been down the road where planetary missions were tied to a new launch system.  NASA didn't pursue a Voyager Uranus probe mission because they were phasing out the Titan launch system and the shuttle wouldn't be ready in time.  We all know the story of how Galileo was repeatedly delayed because of its dependence on the shuttle.

The death of the Titan definitely put limits on probes, with the multiple fly-bys that keep the spacecraft away from their targets nearly as long as issues (technical and political) on the ground.  The shuttle, at least for anything beyond LEO, was a half-assed launcher because of design.  The SLS at least is a vehicle that combines the strengths of both; just shove the Orion out of the way and you have a big rocket with some of the most thoroughly tested parts (since mere humans are so squishy).

I don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising.  And you only improvise when you don't have the best tools for the job.  It is wise to keep both an EELV and a HLV open, but if the HLV is ready by the launch date don't hesitate to use it.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #489 on: 10/08/2014 10:46 pm »

The death of the Titan definitely put limits on probes,

Huh?  Delta IV has more capability than Titan IV and cheaper.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #490 on: 10/09/2014 03:10 am »
I don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising. 
You cannot simply throw a large launch vehicle at every mission. That's expensive. That is money better spent on instruments.

Has anyone proposed doing something like using an HLV for every mission?

Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total. Not sure how you would spend the money on an HLV on instruments. Most of the money goes to the logistics of getting the instruments where they need to go with the resources available to them to get the job done. The reason space science is so much more expensive than earth science is the logistics, not the lab equipment. Instruments could probably use a few extra kgs of mass budget, a few more watts in the power budget rather than a few million in the dollar budget.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 03:17 am by ncb1397 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #491 on: 10/09/2014 06:27 am »
If the mission was solar powered rather than nuclear would there be any advantage to using a Delta IVH for it rather than the Atlas 551?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #492 on: 10/09/2014 01:49 pm »
I don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising. 
You cannot simply throw a large launch vehicle at every mission. That's expensive. That is money better spent on instruments.

Has anyone proposed doing something like using an HLV for every mission?

Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget.


Launch vehicle size, and cost, has been a factor in the selection and non-selection of many planetary missions over the years. Look at Voyager-Mars as the classic example. Of course, size of the spacecraft (and cost) usually tracks with size of the rocket, but as a general rule, planetary missions have sought to keep the launch vehicle size as small as possible and mission designers are not automatically given the option of the largest rocket (there's a reason why Curiosity and Juno did not launch on Delta IVs, for instance).

There are lots of examples, but I'll mention just one: In the 1970s NASA considered a Mercury orbiting mission. But the mission would have required a large launch vehicle, and that (among other things) made it more expensive than people were willing to spend on such a mission. It wasn't until somebody was able to successfully propose a Mercury orbiter mission that could fly on a Delta II that the mission became viable and affordable.

The elimination of the Delta II and the increase in launch costs has materially hit the planetary program. It is one of the major factors in the reduction in Discovery missions.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #493 on: 10/09/2014 01:51 pm »

Has anyone proposed doing something like using an HLV for every mission?


Too expensive.  You can fund a whole Discovery class mission for the cost of just the SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #494 on: 10/09/2014 01:56 pm »

Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.

Wrong.  They are not a small portion.  A lander is the wrong example.  MSL had 3 additional pieces of hardware that other spacecraft don't have: aeroshell, descent stage, and rover.




Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #495 on: 10/09/2014 02:19 pm »

Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.

Wrong.  They are not a small portion.  A lander is the wrong example.  MSL had 3 additional pieces of hardware that other spacecraft don't have: aeroshell, descent stage, and rover.

Also, the Curiosity instrument suite cost more than that. I think the cost was more like $170-$190 million. After all, the cost of the instrument suite for Mars 2020--not including the sample cacher--is over $130 million.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:42 pm by Blackstar »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #496 on: 10/09/2014 03:04 pm »

Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.

Wrong.  They are not a small portion.  A lander is the wrong example.  MSL had 3 additional pieces of hardware that other spacecraft don't have: aeroshell, descent stage, and rover.

Also, the Curiosity instrument suite cost more than that. I think the cost was more like $170-$190 million. After all, the cost of the instrument suite for Mars 2020--not including the sample cacher--is over $130 million.
And that's for a rover, for telescopes is much more (like 200M per instrument for a big one). And I wonder about something like Cassini which should be the closest match for this mission.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #497 on: 10/09/2014 03:13 pm »
The direct costs of instruments often runs 10-15% of the total cost of a mission. Accommodations on the spacecraft to provide power, stable pointing, space, data return, mission operations, etc can be much more. 

I've heard that if one wanted to just have a spacecraft flyby Europa many times with no instruments, the cost would be about $1B.   If you want to do great science, too, about double that price

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #498 on: 10/09/2014 04:39 pm »
And that's for a rover, for telescopes is much more (like 200M per instrument for a big one). And I wonder about something like Cassini which should be the closest match for this mission.

I'd quibble with counting a telescope that way. When it comes to a telescope, I don't think it is totally fair to divide it in terms of "instruments" and everything else. The telescope itself should in some way be considered a scientific instrument. It's not just support equipment.


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #499 on: 10/09/2014 04:50 pm »
And that's for a rover, for telescopes is much more (like 200M per instrument for a big one). And I wonder about something like Cassini which should be the closest match for this mission.

I'd quibble with counting a telescope that way. When it comes to a telescope, I don't think it is totally fair to divide it in terms of "instruments" and everything else. The telescope itself should in some way be considered a scientific instrument. It's not just support equipment.
They include a deep radar. The whole craft has to act as an instrument. Similar concept can be made for the rest of the instruments. A craft with no instruments would have minimum power and heat rejection, basic comm, no pointing and stability needs, etc. So, I concur with vjkane that the instrument cost is the instrument itself plus the incremental cost to the craft.
But I concede that the telescope case is pretty particular.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1