Author Topic: NASA to Announce New Planetary Science (Asteriod Sample Return) Mission  (Read 27209 times)

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Comparisons to Hayabusa will be inevitable. I'm wondering, has the scientific community been underwhelmed by the return from the JAXA mission?

The scientific community is happy to get anything at all from the JAXA mission.  But what is being distributed is particles, not anything you can really see.  That really limits how they can be examined and analyzed.  For instance, with more stuff, they can divide it up more, destroy some of it in testing and still have more left over, etc.
The more interesting comparison is the Hayabusa II mission, which should return samples from a C type asteroid (1999 JU3) in roughly the same time frame. Last I heard, JAXA was given the go ahead for this, aiming at launch in 2014 or 2015.

If sampling goes as planned, this would macroscopic quantities (several grams ?) though not as much as OR.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
ASU Press Release on the thermal spectrometer, which has a pretty good overview of the mission: http://asunews.asu.edu/20110526_asteroid

WRT the need for an Atlas V, 1999 RQ36 is not in an easy orbit to get to, and the spacecraft will spend nearly three years getting there... Here's the orbit itself: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=101955;orb=1

Also WRT International Partners, Osiris will have Canadian-supplied LiDAR for mapping the asteroid.

And as far as sample collection, last I heard, the plan was to reach out, grab some loose regolith, and then shake the arm around to measure the amount collected by the change in angular momentum. Not elegant, but it works...
« Last Edit: 05/26/2011 08:46 pm by simonbp »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Well, from a couple things I've read, NASA didn't at all buy the idea that they could do it for that ~$425M price.  So, this is probably also some added "realism" to the price.  This presentation also says they've improved the science capability, but I'm not sure what specifically.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Uue2zuwUPpUJ:sci2.esa.int/Conferences/MarcoPolo-ws08/The_OSIRIS_mission_-_Dante_Lauretta.pdf+osiris+rex&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjZpeN5Q9nHq6LSWYntZ3s4gizmZDlvMJSO5Or9YaATDXfuY9fdNf9E41nlHQ60J5IwC0rUIQFBYOyy89EkAIcoqbhtErEWG0Elp2Rtg4Lu3vHrq7TVvVAcEPs3Vc4jV_spQE3-&sig=AHIEtbTCXdbra7n6LFIMj3plS60vLkf7Iw
That document specifically mentions space for an international partner. Does this changes now that it was selected? Marco Polo was named.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
What a shame :( May be some of the other NF missions that "lost" can look up international partners to make the 425M of a Discovery mission? In any case I was thinking of some "small" extra, like a wide field camera or such. You know, the little things that many countries can do right and, if the mass margins are not used, are a nice thing to add. Something like saying that you budget a 25% of margin. If you only need 18%, then let the partner add something.
Another issue is the other services. If the ESA could be somehow talked to launch it in an Ariane 5, for example, it would save quite a lot of money for NASA (who has to pay the launch, and it's outside of the mission budget). I don't know how's the arrangement with Australia for the DSN, but if you lease anything, the Australians might take the tab if allowed somehow. Just an idea.


It does matter if there is mass margin, the problem is money margin and it still costs to add  another instrument even if the instrument is free

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
1-What a shame :( May be some of the other NF missions that "lost" can look up international partners to make the 425M of a Discovery mission?

2-Another issue is the other services. If the ESA could be somehow talked to launch it in an Ariane 5, for example, it would save quite a lot of money for NASA (who has to pay the launch, and it's outside of the mission budget).

1-No way.  These missions are not cheap, and you'd have to get an international partner to pay A LOT of the cost to cram something like this down into a Discovery cost cap (which is going up, but not by much).

2-NASA tried this with JWST and it failed spectacularly (although nobody outside the program has paid much notice).  What happened was this: ESA offered the Ariane 5 in return for a share of the mission.  US launch vehicle providers then complained, saying that they would gladly be willing to sell NASA a launch vehicle instead of the agency getting one for free.  This led to a delay in the program that some people figure has now cost as much as the "free" Ariane 5.  Getting a launch vehicle from ESA is a risky proposition.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Well, from a couple things I've read, NASA didn't at all buy the idea that they could do it for that ~$425M price.  So, this is probably also some added "realism" to the price.  This presentation also says they've improved the science capability, but I'm not sure what specifically.

Yeah, but it's a $375 million difference.  I cannot see how the "realism" factor would be more than (at most) $100 million.

Some of it is inflation.  But maybe they have added an instrument.  And I think that their original science target was not organics.  Did changing the target increase the planetary protection requirements?  Did that affect the cost?

I was hoping that this mission was going to come in at maybe $600 million, leaving a few hundred million extra to go somewhere else (like toward another Discovery selection).  Of course, that was stupid of me, because every PI that proposes always maximizes their science (by adding instruments) up to the cost cap.  There's no incentive in these programs to not bump right up against the cap.  Why save money if you a-don't get to keep it, and b-it may cause you to lose?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
2-NASA tried this with JWST and it failed spectacularly (although nobody outside the program has paid much notice).  What happened was this: ESA offered the Ariane 5 in return for a share of the mission.  US launch vehicle providers then complained, saying that they would gladly be willing to sell NASA a launch vehicle instead of the agency getting one for free.  This led to a delay in the program that some people figure has now cost as much as the "free" Ariane 5.  Getting a launch vehicle from ESA is a risky proposition.

Where can I read more about it? It's something that I've head. I've think someone stated that they have actually lost the "free" Ariane 5 launch (in a hearing, I think).

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
No it isn't.  Lunar SPAB Sample Return is still recommended by the Decadal Survey for consideration in New Frontiers-4 and (if not selected then) in NF-5.  The cadence of NF missions is supposed to be every five years, so this would slip it only that long, at minimum. 

That is entirely true, although it will start out NF-4 having to compete against 4 other missions.  Here is the decadal guidance:

Select NF-4 from among:
Comet Surface Sample Return
Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
Saturn Probe
Trojan Tour and Rendezvous
Venus In Situ Explorer

If it is a good proposal, NASA will probably down-select to two or three options, allow the teams to study them for a year, then select from there.  Alternatively, NASA could simply select right off the bat (the downside to doing that is that it doesn't give the newcomers as much opportunity to prepare).

For NF-5:
The remaining candidates from NF-4, plus add:
Io Observer
Lunar Geophysical Network


From what I have heard, the biggest impediment for Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return is not the technology, it is the confidence in the sample.  The mission requires the spacecraft to land, scoop up some stuff, and bring it home--but there is no good way to know beforehand if you have a useful sample or boring dirt.  I don't know if anybody answered that with any confidence.  It's a toughee.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2011 10:32 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Where can I read more about it? It's something that I've head. I've think someone stated that they have actually lost the "free" Ariane 5 launch (in a hearing, I think).

I don't know.  I think there was a Science News article on "how JWST ended up so damned expensive" a month or so ago.  I only read part of it, and don't know if it is included in the article.  This story is common knowledge among the people who work on the program, and I've heard it in several briefings.  That does not mean that it has been documented yet.  To my knowledge, nobody has yet written a detailed, tell-all article about JWST and how it started and evolved into a very expensive monster.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
John

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
From what I have heard, the biggest impediment for Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return is not the technology, it is the confidence in the sample.  The mission requires the spacecraft to land, scoop up some stuff, and bring it home--but there is no good way to know beforehand if you have a useful sample or boring dirt.  I don't know if anybody answered that with any confidence.  It's a toughee.

That's one of the reasons why I've always considered it the least ideal candidate on the list -- there is a risk that we could learn very little. As well, we know so much more about the moon than we do about, say, Venus or Io.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 05:18 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
From what I have heard, the biggest impediment for Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return is not the technology, it is the confidence in the sample.  The mission requires the spacecraft to land, scoop up some stuff, and bring it home--but there is no good way to know beforehand if you have a useful sample or boring dirt.  I don't know if anybody answered that with any confidence.  It's a toughee.

Doesn't this argue pretty strongly for either a rover or multiple flights of hardware of the same design?  Maybe one multi-hop lander?  Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

EDIT:  Spelling.  Argh.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2011 05:21 am by Proponent »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
That's one of the reasons why I've always considered it the least ideal candidate on the list -- there is a risk that we could learn very little. As well, we know so much more about the moon than we do about, say, Venus or Io.

I'm not a scientist (famous last words), but I've talked to a number of people about this one and they tend to agree that answering the question about the Late Heavy Bombardment period--which is what the SPA sample return mission could do--is a Very Important Scientific Question.  It's a biggee, and it's not simply about the Moon.  It would have a major effect upon our understanding of the formation of our solar system.

So the issue is not if this is important to do, the issue is if it is possible to do with a robotic lander.  It's quite possible that this kind of question could only be answered with a more ambitious approach, such as a complex rover taking multiple samples for return to Earth, or maybe even a human mission.

But as I said, I'm not a scientist.  It would be useful to find one who knows something about the engineering challenges and the science issues...

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Doesn't this argue pretty strongly for either a rover or multiple flights of hardware of the same design?  Maybe one multi-hop lander?  Or am I misunderstand the problem?

See my previous post.  But I'll just say that I don't really know.  The people who could chime in are members of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG).  LEAG should meet at least twice a year, but their website implies that they only do an annual meeting in the fall.  They did sponsor a workshop on "architecture issues associated with sampling" in summer 2007, but I don't see the proceedings:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lunararch2007/

You might dig around for more info on that.

Oh, and for those of you who are interested, the best way to dive into this stuff (other than reading the planetary decadal survey), is to look at the websites of the various Analysis Groups:

LEAG
VEXAG (Venus)
OPAG (Outer Planets)
MEPAG (Mars)
SBAG (small bodies)

Those groups represent the science interests in those areas.  Their websites are not particularly science heavy.  You can look at the presentations there and see proposals for new spacecraft, instruments, exploration strategies, etc. 

By the way, they are called "Assessment" or "Analysis" groups because if they were "advisory" that kicks in some legal requirements from the federal government.  This way they can voice their views, but not have to abide by all the regulations.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
I was wondering. Isn't this a great opportunity to host an international partner's payload? May be an Indian or Israeli's instrument? That could be a nice option to lower some of the costs, by offloading the things that you already know how to do, to other countries with the capabilities, that want to pay that part by themselves? Something non critical, if possible.

This is somewhat rare on PI-led missions (i.e. Discovery and New Frontiers), but it can happen.  However, what usually happens in these cases is that the foreign instruments/equipment is added to the mission to boost capability, not to lower cost.  It's somewhat crude to say it, but if a PI is awarded $425 million (Discovery) or $800 million (New Frontiers) they have no incentive after the award to save any money on the project.  There's no benefit to them.

I'll plead ignorance as to how this is actually implemented, however.  I suppose that any foreign involvement needs to be included in the original proposal and cannot be added after the mission is selected, because it would alter the design. 

I don't agree.  It is possible that one part of the proposed mission could be displaced by an equivalent element provided by a foreign competitor courtesy of their government for their domestic reasons.  This would free up the domestic team's funding to help the PI stay under the cost cap.  There is always cost growth, and no PI is insensitive to it.

But I would agree that a PI has no incentive to add foreign hardware for political reasons.  That would drive up cost, and having won a mission, the PI's battles are not political, but cost and schedule.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Sounds like an interesting mission, but isn't an Atlas overkill for a NEO mission?

Why? I was actually wondering if it would need a 551 or 541 considering it has a sample return capsule, needs a fair amount of Delta V, and has to carry a fair amount of propellant to get home.

Atlas V 401 is the baselined vehicle

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
I don't agree.  It is possible that one part of the proposed mission could be displaced by an equivalent element provided by a foreign competitor courtesy of their government for their domestic reasons.  This would free up the domestic team's funding to help the PI stay under the cost cap.  There is always cost growth, and no PI is insensitive to it.

Are there any examples of this actually happening?  While what you describe might work in theory, I cannot see how it could actually happen.  The reason is that adding a foreign instrument to free up money would have to happen very early in the development.  It's not something that a PI could do several years into the development effort.  And if the PI has money problems very early in development, that's a bad sign. 

So I could see it as something happening as an insurance policy (to save money for later), but not as a rescue of a program in danger of going over the cost cap.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2011 01:11 pm by Blackstar »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Part of my point that was that the Powerpoint of the mission specifically mentioned the ESA Marco Polo mission. Which make me though that there was, at least the chance, from early on. And I don't know how things are bartered between ESA and NASA. But the whole issue of the JWST launch, and the problem with ExoMars comings and goings, wouldn't make NASA to give some other partnering option to ESA?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Just saw a presentation on Osiris-Rex that answered several of my questions.

Q-What was the difference between their Discovery proposal several years ago and their New Frontiers proposal now? 

A-Three new instruments.

 
Q-How does the sampling mechanism work? 

A-It literally works like an air filter-they blow the stuff through a filter using nitrogen. 


Q-What is the backup sampling mechanism?

A-Backup is a stainless steel Velcro-like material.  It picks up stuff by spearing/pinching it and also by electrostatic charge.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Q-What is the backup sampling mechanism?

A-Backup is a stainless steel Velcro-like material.  It picks up stuff by spearing/pinching it and also by electrostatic charge.


Anything to do with Altius?

Tags:
 

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