Author Topic: Europa Clipper’s launch date dependent on SLS Mobile Launcher readiness  (Read 22947 times)

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 75
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 




* modified text from Lefty the salesman from sesame street   ::)


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10777
  • Likes Given: 321
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

Offline whatever11235

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 30
not a viable candidate

Can 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?)?

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6033
  • Liked: 3840
  • Likes Given: 5310
not a viable candidate

Can 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?)?

Because it isn't certified for that class of payload (like SLS is).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1793327#msg1793327
« Last Edit: 02/26/2018 05:18 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2137
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1314
  • Likes Given: 1533
That's a fairly loose usage of the word "viable".
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 8
Pretty sure they could manage to certify it given 4 years notice

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10777
  • Likes Given: 321
And, there is not just risk Class A certification, it is also nuclear certification.

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 17
And, 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.html

Google "INSRP" for more.

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 56
not a viable candidate

Can 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?)?
Atlas V 552 will have lower performance than 551 for high-energy (anything except LEO) missions.

The notional Atlas V 551 mission is a VEEGA trajectory of 6 years duration, compared to a 3 year direct mission.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10777
  • Likes Given: 321
And, 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.html

Google "INSRP" for more.


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"

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 36
Just being stupid here, how can SLS be certified if the first one has not been produced and/or flown?

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3980
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2048
Just being stupid here, how can SLS be certified if the first one has not been produced and/or flown?

That's what happens when an organization certifies its own work.  :)  No, it doesn't make sense. The argument would be that they have more insight into their own development, but that does not preclude them from having large blind spots about issues that would effect SLS safety and reliability.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2018 06:00 PM by Lars-J »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Liked: 1308
  • Likes Given: 840
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?

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 17
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"

Using the exact same A5 (or other LV) configuration may save some analysis on the launch side.

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.

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).

The health risks of those nuclear missions to the population are different, regardless of whether the LV failure modes and probabilities are the same.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2018 09:12 PM by UltraViolet9 »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8027
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4077
  • Likes Given: 1248
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?

Not necessarily. It will be dependent on several factors:
- US Congress being adamant on using SLS to launch Europa Clipper
- Development of Europa Clipper being delayed to such an extent that the launch date is well beyond the completion of the EM-2 mods to the ML.

Both scenarios are IMO highly likely.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10777
  • Likes Given: 321

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).

1.  It saves a lot from the LV POV

2.  MSL and Mars 2020 are.

3.  Never said they were.  But it wasn't MER, it was Pluto New Horizons that did a lot of the leg work for MSL.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2018 12:26 PM by Jim »

Offline Markstark

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 5
Second mobile launcher spotted in new omnibus bill

Quote
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

Link to bill here: https://t.co/qQ4xfept0G
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 02:44 AM by Markstark »

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 12
It's interesting they spent more than 800 Mio. $ in refurbishing an existing MLP, while a new one is estimated to cost 350 Mio. $....

What a crap.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 65
It'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....

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4292
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 943
  • Likes Given: 539
It'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....
That was when SLS was to use the constellation programmes umbilical arms which were still in testing at the time. One of the main factors other than change of launch vehicle: price and mass went up with the switch from gravity arms to swing arms.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 09:41 PM by russianhalo117 »