-
NASA 2015 Discovery proposals by Blackstar on 18 Feb, 2015 00:07
-
Starting this thread to keep tabs on what proposals are being submitted to the Discovery program this round (which I think closed today).
Here are ones that I am aware of (note that question marks indicate that I've heard of an additional mission proposal, but either do not have details or do not have permission to mention it):
Moon
NanoSWARM–-Cubesat Discovery mission to study space weathering, lunar magnetism, lunar water and small-scale magnetospheres--LPSC 2015 abstract
MARE (Moon Age and Regolith Explorer)--lunar lander: http://www.nature.com/news/five-solar-system-sights-nasa-should-visit-1.17119
Phobos/Deimos
PANDORA (Phobos ANd Deimos ORigin Assessment)--JPL Phobos/Deimos mission disclosed at DPS
PADME--Ames Phobos/Deimos mission disclosed at DPS
Mars-Moons Exploration, Reconnaissance and Landed Investigation (MERLIN)--LPSC 2015 abstract
Venus
Venus Atmosphere and Surface Explorer--Venus atmospheric mission disclosed at DPS
RAVEN (Radar At VENus)--Venus radar mission: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.P31D..04S
VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR Topography and Spectroscopy)--Venus radar mission: http://www.nature.com/news/five-solar-system-sights-nasa-should-visit-1.17119
Io
Io Volcanic Observer--disclosed at DPS
Telescopes
Whipple--selected for tech funding in last round
NEOCam--JPL mission selected for tech funding in last round
Kuiper--planetary telescope to be discussed at OPAG
Main Belt Asteroids
Psyche--details required
Multiple (9) asteroid mission: http://www.nature.com/news/five-solar-system-sights-nasa-should-visit-1.17119
Trojan Asteroids
Lucy: http://www.nature.com/news/five-solar-system-sights-nasa-should-visit-1.17119
Near Earth Objects
DARe Dark Asteroid Rendezvous--LPSC 2015 abstract
BASiX (Binary Asteroid in-situ Explorer): http://www.nature.com/news/five-solar-system-sights-nasa-should-visit-1.17119
Comets
CORE-COmet Radar Explorer--disclosed at DPS 2014
Enceladus
Enceladus Life Finder--disclosed on a Facebook post by Carolyn Porco - specific NSF discussion thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36823.0
Mars
Mars Icebreaker Life--Ames mission based on Phoenix lander disclosed on internet
??
Edit/Lar: crosslink to specific discussion thread where known
-
#1 by vjkane on 18 Feb, 2015 00:38
-
My list is a bit longer and includes ESA M4 planetary proposals that I know about. The ESA missions would be approximately the same scope as a Discovery mission, although the ESA program also has many proposals for astrophysics missions.
Venus
3? Discovery radar proposals
EnVision (ESA) radar
Venus Atmosphere and Surface Explorer
Space Telescopes
Kuiper
Sentinel
Moon
Farside (ESA)
Near Earth Asteroids
Marco Polo-D (ESA + China)
BASiX
DARe
Mars
IceBreaker
Phobos and Demos
Merlin
PADME
Pandora
Comets
Reportedly several teams preparing Discovery proposals
Main Belt Asteroids
Psyche
Castila (ESA)
Jovian System
Io Observer
Saturnian System
Enceladus Life Finder
Hera Saturn probe (ESA + USA)
Uranian System
Uranus Pathfinder (ESA + US)
-
#2 by vjkane on 18 Feb, 2015 00:55
-
NASA also is conducting a competition to select a planetary CubeSat mission in addition to the two that are already funded (by a different part of NASA than the planetary program).
I've rounded up a number of the proposals here:
http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2015/02/planetary-cubesats-begin-to-come-of-age.html
-
#3 by shooter6947 on 18 Feb, 2015 05:18
-
#4 by vjkane on 19 Feb, 2015 04:43
-
As I recall, PRiME was a proposed Discovery mission to carry an unusually sensitive mass spectrometer to a comet rendezvous to get much more sensitive measurements than Rosetta's MS will. NASA funded further development on the MS (MASPEX or something like that?). I've seen the instrument listed in other possible proposals, so it may become the new gold standard. PRiME itself could also be re-proposed with the now, presumably, much more mature MS instrument.
1-I don't know anything more about this [PRiME]. Is it an actual Discovery mission, or an instrument? What is the mission itself?
3-I have some more information on that (although not much), but I'll have to ask permission to share it.
PADME appears to be the least ambitious of the three Martian moon proposals I know about. (One other has an orbiter and for another the spacecraft is also a lander.) That could be good if reviewers are positive about the science importance of these moons but conservative on engineering risks. Less good if they like the science but think the other missions are low risk.
-
#5 by Roly on 19 Feb, 2015 09:17
-
This is such an interesting thread, with so many possible candidates; I often find it reassuring to read proposed Discovery presentations when preparing rather smaller grant applications (for history, hence, the traceability matrix never looks quite as nice).
I would be intrigued to see if MAGIC was proposed? I thought it a very promising idea, though I appreciate also that Mars has been well supported indeed. Perhaps it carrying another relay payload would confer some intangible/unweighted advantage in selection. It does remind me, in an oblique way, not only of HiRISE, but also of the special optics (MIDAS) idea from 2006 OPAG - very powerful camera moving into the <10cm realm. IVO and TiME were my previous most wanted options.
RAVEN was the only Venus radar mission I saw published abstracts on; a large leap in resolution over Magellan. Seemed the most plausible Venus option (surely no lander is plausible for less than NF)? Edit: The EAGLE SAR mission for Mars was also interesting, though again, perhaps there are strong reasons of program balance to spread Discovery a little more widely.
Incidentally, I hope there will be good reports from OPAG this week, regarding Discovery Outer Planets, and EC updates. Awaiting for the presentations page from OPAG meetings get me through the work day! -
#6 by Roly on 19 Feb, 2015 15:05
-
Hi Blackstar,
No worries, the abstracts I saw for these were:
MAGIC: www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4325.pdf
RAVEN: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.P31D..04S
And MIDAS was a discussion presentation at the mid-2006 OPAG. The USMF forum had some discussion on it - I was somewhat irrationally captivated by the idea:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/may_06_meeting/presentations/pitman.pdf
A similar optical system may have been on some of the assorted, and rather optimistic, JIMO instrument ideas: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1890.pdf and http://cfd.me.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Multiple-Instrument-Distributed-Aperture-Sensor-MIDAS-For-Planetary-Remote-Sensing.pdf
All the best,
Roland -
#7 by redliox on 20 Feb, 2015 08:18
-
Here is an LPSC abstract for PANDORA. I had a slide presentation for this that covers the same stuff, but I cannot find it.
Still good to see it. I heard about PADME earlier but not about a second Martian moon mission. Aside from being a robust and dedicated vehicle to the moons, high imaging and spectroscopy are the only 'priorities' mentioned in place of specific instruments.
Here is a related pdf page I discovered but its not much more informative: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2792.pdf -
#8 by redliox on 20 Feb, 2015 08:29
-
Personally I'm rooting for any of the Martian moon missions and Io Observer. After them I'd love to see the Uranus Pathfinder but (unless ESA REALLY wants to pay the bill) that's a bit beyond Discovery class. Venus I'd rank next in line, but only because the lack of missions there genuinely deserves some pity.
-
#9 by baldusi on 20 Feb, 2015 12:08
-
[...]
Why would a Venus lander be so expensive? It's the easiest planet to reach from a delta-v and launch windows perspective. It has an atmosphere that enables aerobraking with the technology that we already use on Earth. The pressure problem is not that different from deep sea. And we've done 1,000 atmospheres of pressure many times. The real big problem is cooling the electronics. But mechanics, comm, and such are all relatively easy for a planetary mission.
RAVEN was the only Venus radar mission I saw published abstracts on; a large leap in resolution over Magellan. Seemed the most plausible Venus option (surely no lander is plausible for less than NF)?
[...] -
#10 by Robotbeat on 20 Feb, 2015 13:18
-
Agree testing would be tough.[...]
Why would a Venus lander be so expensive? It's the easiest planet to reach from a delta-v and launch windows perspective. It has an atmosphere that enables aerobraking with the technology that we already use on Earth. The pressure problem is not that different from deep sea. And we've done 1,000 atmospheres of pressure many times. The real big problem is cooling the electronics. But mechanics, comm, and such are all relatively easy for a planetary mission.
RAVEN was the only Venus radar mission I saw published abstracts on; a large leap in resolution over Magellan. Seemed the most plausible Venus option (surely no lander is plausible for less than NF)?
[...]
Testing isn't going to be cheap. Most spacecraft are tested by putting them in a vacuum chamber. That's not what you do for a Venus spacecraft.
Glenn has a new Venus chamber that they were putting the finishing touches on when I was there summer of 2013. -
#11 by redliox on 20 Feb, 2015 18:10
-
Starting this thread to keep tabs on what proposals are being submitted to the Discovery program this round (which I think closed today).
What is the overall schedule like again? As you mentioned they're now closed to further proposals so when would the current batch result first with finalists and then the final selection? -
#12 by kschachn on 21 Feb, 2015 00:20
-
The cooling problem is crippling though, isn't it? No electronics can operate at Venus's temperature, and how/where do you reject the heat?
Why would a Venus lander be so expensive? It's the easiest planet to reach from a delta-v and launch windows perspective. It has an atmosphere that enables aerobraking with the technology that we already use on Earth. The pressure problem is not that different from deep sea. And we've done 1,000 atmospheres of pressure many times. The real big problem is cooling the electronics. But mechanics, comm, and such are all relatively easy for a planetary mission.
-
#13 by NovaSilisko on 21 Feb, 2015 05:31
-
Am I being too pessimistic/paranoid if I feel like they're going to pick another low-complexity/low-cost mars proposal like InSight more-or-less by default, because it's more politically favorable per the mars hype of recent years?
I am generally curious how much a role agency (and higher) politics play in the selection process. -
#14 by Star One on 21 Feb, 2015 08:41
-
Hi Blackstar,
No worries, the abstracts I saw for these were:
MAGIC: www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4325.pdf
RAVEN: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.P31D..04S
And MIDAS was a discussion presentation at the mid-2006 OPAG. The USMF forum had some discussion on it - I was somewhat irrationally captivated by the idea:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/may_06_meeting/presentations/pitman.pdf
A similar optical system may have been on some of the assorted, and rather optimistic, JIMO instrument ideas: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1890.pdf and http://cfd.me.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Multiple-Instrument-Distributed-Aperture-Sensor-MIDAS-For-Planetary-Remote-Sensing.pdf
All the best,
RolandAm I being too pessimistic/paranoid if I feel like they're going to pick another low-complexity/low-cost mars proposal like InSight more-or-less by default, because it's more politically favorable per the mars hype of recent years?
I fear that you might be right on this. The IO observer is the mission that catches my interest amongst the proposals listed.
I am generally curious how much a role agency (and higher) politics play in the selection process.
-
#15 by yokem55 on 21 Feb, 2015 22:26
-
The cooling problem is crippling though, isn't it? No electronics can operate at Venus's temperature, and how/where do you reject the heat?
A long term Venus lander would require-Why would a Venus lander be so expensive? It's the easiest planet to reach from a delta-v and launch windows perspective. It has an atmosphere that enables aerobraking with the technology that we already use on Earth. The pressure problem is not that different from deep sea. And we've done 1,000 atmospheres of pressure many times. The real big problem is cooling the electronics. But mechanics, comm, and such are all relatively easy for a planetary mission.
a) Really good insulation.
b) Active cooling with an exotic, high temp heat pump system with a cryogenic compressor and an external heat exchanger made of some exotic metals that can withstand the heat and sulfur in the atmosphere.
c) Electronics stable to 200°c - hard but not impossible with the right chips/board designs.
d) A kick ass power source that can keep the ac running.
I think d is the hardest problem to solve as there isn't that much sun light under the clouds and anything nuclear is just going to exacerbate the thermal issues.
Or we could be okay with a short duration (6 hours?) mission cooled with a tank of a cryogenic substance (something long term storable) and when that's gone the mission is over.... -
#16 by Blackstar on 21 Feb, 2015 22:47
-
Am I being too pessimistic/paranoid if I feel like they're going to pick another low-complexity/low-cost mars proposal like InSight more-or-less by default, because it's more politically favorable per the mars hype of recent years?
I am generally curious how much a role agency (and higher) politics play in the selection process.
Well, you need to define what you mean by "politics." I would say that the selection of Discovery and New Frontiers missions are probably the least political selections NASA does. By that I mean that neither the White House nor Congress is telling NASA what to do, the agency is making the selection based upon their determination of the scientific and technical merits of the proposals, how they fit into the overall portfolio of missions, and similar considerations. In fact, the entire purpose of creating the Discovery and New Frontiers program lines was to take the politics out of the equation.
Now you could still call that "political" if you want, because NASA doesn't operate on its own--it is part of the executive branch. It cannot do things that may anger the White House and congressional leadership without facing possible consequences. And there have been situations in the past where Discovery and New Frontiers missions either were, or could possibly have been influenced by bigger "political" issues. The most common political issue is the desire to stay within the budget caps for the programs.
I'll give a few examples:
-Prospector
AA for science Wes Huntress picked the cheapest of the mission proposals because he wanted to send a message to proposers to try to keep costs down. (I heard this from him directly.)
-GRAIL
The mission most likely to stay within the cost cap (and in fact, it came in under budget). It was no secret that AA for science Alan Stern wanted cheaper missions and had warned people repeatedly that he thought that missions going over-budget was hurting the program. So he was sending a message. Also, it was a lunar mission, and the president had announced plans to return humans to the Moon. Maybe that influenced Stern as well. That said, Stern also was interested in lunar missions in general.
-OSIRIS-REx (New Frontiers)
The mission most likely to stay within the cost cap. I don't think the fact that this is an asteroid mission had anything to do with NASA's new focus on asteroids. I think it was simply an effort to stay on budget.
-InSight
The mission most likely to stay within the cost cap. Now you could also suspect that AA for science Grunsfeld had been talking a lot about Mars and that influenced the decision. But I think that it probably really came down to budget. Plus, the ASRGs were starting to run way over budget too, so NASA was possibly going to get stuck with a mission that was very expensive (TiME or Comet Hopper) plus a power source that was going to run over budget.
Now I'd also argue that budget is simply something that has to be considered all the time and because this is government, it is part of the political system by definition. If you go back to my definition of "political," here's the way to look at it: the White House and Congress provide NASA with a budget line for Discovery and New Frontiers. Then they stay hands off. As long as the projects do not go over budget, then OMB and Congress don't pay attention. They leave NASA alone. As soon as the projects go over budget, then OMB in particular starts asking questions. NASA has to start looking for money from other projects to pay for the overruns. And it unbalances the overall portfolio. So the best way for NASA to keep OMB and Congress from poking around in their business is to select programs that will stay within budget, and to manage them carefully so that they don't go over budget.
And this is where once again I will sound the trumpet for the decadal survey process. It works amazingly well at keeping politics out of the selection process as much as possible. The decadal survey is also a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for science programs to happen. If it isn't in the decadal survey, it's very difficult for somebody to come along and whisper in a congressman's ear and get a program to happen. The reason that Mars 2020 exists, and the reason that Europa Clipper now exists, is because the decadal survey said that they were worthwhile programs. And the reason that some other programs did not get approval despite lobbying Congress for them (like New Horizons 2) is because they were NOT in the decadal survey.
It's going to sound maudlin, but the U.S. has developed a pretty good process for picking science missions, and you can be proud of the people--in the White House, Congress, NASA, and the scientific community--who helped establish it over many decades. -
#17 by Robotbeat on 21 Feb, 2015 23:22
-
Am I being too pessimistic/paranoid if I feel like they're going to pick another low-complexity/low-cost mars proposal like InSight more-or-less by default, because it's more politically favorable per the mars hype of recent years?
I'm glad to be alive at a time when this is a real gripe that people have.
...
-
#18 by redliox on 22 Feb, 2015 07:25
-
Sweet updates on the IVO Blackstar! It looks eye catching, and I love the idea of 3 probes simultaneously at Jupiter. The Europa plume search is a bonus, no doubt mentioned in light of 'Clipper's selection and the need to confirm whether or not Hubble's discovery is true.
Presuming the concept picture is valid, it looks like they're mimicking Juno's spin design to a degree in addition to radiation tolerance.
A question I'd have would be how they would handle imaging from an inclined orbit; when I asked similar questions to Europa engineers they spoke of the speed differences between the satellite and probe causing trouble, with images becoming 'smeared' one way or another. I'm under the impression the IVO team knows a way to counter this the 'Clipper team can't utilize. -
#19 by redliox on 24 Feb, 2015 22:07
-
Here's the public info on IVO: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_images/B-IVO-Fact%20Sheet_20150217-public.pdf
