Quote from: arachnitect on 05/26/2011 02:43 pmComparisons 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.
Comparisons to Hayabusa will be inevitable. I'm wondering, has the scientific community been underwhelmed by the return from the JAXA mission?
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Quote from: baldusi on 05/26/2011 01:55 pmI 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 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.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/26/2011 02:25 pmSounds 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.
Sounds like an interesting mission, but isn't an Atlas overkill for a NEO mission?
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.
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.