http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-continues-debate-on-when-and-how-to-launch-europa-clipper/NASA is study two launch version one with ULA Atlas V and Gravitational Swing by maneuver for $432 million other SLS direct to Jupiter for around $600 million now Capitol Hill is questioning the Europa Clipper budget, special the use of SLS in june 2022 Hey, NASA you look like intelligent organisation you look like someone who would be interested in a bargain. Wanna buy this rocket, NASA ?*just $150-90 million launch cost and bring space probe direct to destinations, no need for Gravitational Swing by maneuver
not a viable candidate
Quote from: Jim on 02/26/2018 01:05 pmnot a viable candidateCan you please expand on this (I assume you are talking about FH)? Not viable direct or at all? Why? What about Atlas V (can Atlas V 552 do direct?)?
And, there is not just risk Class A certification, it is also nuclear certification.
Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2018 01:55 pmAnd, there is not just risk Class A certification, it is also nuclear certification.Launches of nuclear materials aren't so much certified as approved on a case-by-case basis by the executive.Specifically, for NASA missions involving launch of nuclear materials, NASA and DOE spends some years preparing a risk analysis. This analysis is then reviewed by an Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) representing more agencies than NASA and DOE. The INSRP then forwards a recommendation to the White House, which approves or disapproves the launch.I was involved in the White House review of the INSRP recommendation for the Cassini launch, described in this press release:https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/97/casok.htmlGoogle "INSRP" for more.
Just being stupid here, how can SLS be certified if the first one has not been produced and/or flown?
yes, I know and I supported INSRP for MER and MSL. The analysis has been done for Atlas V (twice and will be for a third time) and hence it is "certified"
NASA no longer seeking to develop second mobile launcher for SLS:http://spacenews.com/nasa-no-longer-seeking-to-develop-second-mobile-launcher-for-sls/So does that mean that the Atlas V wins by default for the Europa Clipper mission?
1. Using the exact same A5 (or other LV) configuration may save some analysis on the launch side.2. But unless the s/c are exact duplicates launching from the same location on the same trajectory under the same conditions -- and those factors are never identical -- the nuclear and health analysis is always unique to that mission and launch.3. Just because a LV configuration launched a short-lived rover with RHUs a couple years ago does _not_ mean that the same LV configuration is "certified" (or cleared, endorsed, etc.) to launch a long-lived rover with RTGs now (for example).
Provided further, That $895,000,000 shall be for Exploration Ground Systems, including $350,000,000 for a second mobile launch platform and associated SLS activities
It's interesting they spent more than 800 Mio. $ in refurbishing an existing MLP, while a new one is estimated to cost 350 Mio. $....
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 03/22/2018 06:05 amIt's interesting they spent more than 800 Mio. $ in refurbishing an existing MLP, while a new one is estimated to cost 350 Mio. $....Well they originally thought modifying the existing ML would only cost $54 million....