Unless we discover a new way to get to these places much faster, we are never really gonna see a faster turnout for these type of missions
Unless we discover a new way to get to these places much faster, we are never really gonna see a faster turnout for these type of missions
Isn't it the money more than the speed through space? They simply cannot afford more missions
Unless we discover a new way to get to these places much faster, we are never really gonna see a faster turnout for these type of missions
Isn't it the money more than the speed through space? They simply cannot afford more missions
ESA has a smaller science budget than NASA (you can look up the numbers, although the member nation's individual space science budgets also contribute to ESA, for example to provide instruments or analyze data).
As a treaty organization, ESA has to operate based on consensus and well articulated - and followed - long term plans.
They also plan missions differently. They select a destination/concept and that becomes part of the approved plan for the agency. Then they do the preliminary architecture and design work that leads to a definitive mission plan that can then be formally approved. That leads to a long time between selection of the concept, formal mission approval, design/testing/construction, and then launch.
NASA doesn't have quite the equivalent. NASA will state it has a goal to fly a particular kind of mission, but that's not a formal approval of the concept. Approval comes when the mission architecture is well along and there's a mission team. ESA selects the team well after approving the concept
I had this discussion with my congressman at the time Jim Sensenbrenner (former chair of the House Science Committee). We were discussing the ITER nuclear fusion project. He thought, and I agreed, that committing to a design thirty years to complete was completely ridiculous and a big waste of money because it ignores potential breakthroughs along the way. I think it is reasonable to come up with general goals for twenty years out, but not specific designs to accomplish them.
We're at a point where projects as complicated as ITER take 20 years to build. The start of that build is when you should freeze the design, otherwise you'll be restarting construction and adding years to the build over and over again.
Before that, there's going to be years of designing, and before that, there's going to be years of R&D before you can settle on a design. We could speed that up by increasing funding, but as we've seen with ITER, that's not happening. So we end up with having to freeze the design 30 years before the reactor becomes operational.
And since then there was the breakthrough in REBCO superconductors that allows a much stronger magnetic field than they had anticipated being available for ITER rendering the design obsolete and yet they keep building it. That is my problem with such long term projects. They become white elephants that no one has the guts to kill.
That is my problem with such long term projects. They become white elephants that no one has the guts to kill.
ESA has settled on Enceladus (and if you read the report, the other moons of Saturn) as the target for its large mission.
Design work may not start for another decade.
This is a programmatic decision, not a design decision. ESA settles on its scientific targets much further in advance than NASA does, possibly because they are an international agency that has to build and maintain consensus for programs that last decades.
I realize this is a national prestige matter, but I'd think the prestige attaches to the science, not the launcher. And talking *18 years* in advance, surely some advance in launcher technology can be assumed. And at some point, launch will become a commodity. Perhaps an analogy is research at the South Pole - no one cares what ship brought the equipment, just what the research reveals.
In other words, you want to discuss Starship in this thread.
I completely get your frustration with Starship poking up everywhere.
On the other hand, I worked for 30 years in the semiconductor industry, where you based next year's plan (not to mention plans 18 years out) on technology that was not available yet, but you could see coming. Failure to take future advances into account was a disaster that led quickly to uncompetitive products and likely corporate demise. Space launch technology is not advancing as quickly or reliably as semiconductor technology, but the same idea holds. If you want a mission that will be state of the art in 2042, you need to think of what advances may occur.
As far as launch as a commodity, again I think the semiconductor industry might provide a good example. In the 1980's, semiconductor fabs were thought to be a corporate and national jewel. Every company, and every country, had to have its own fab for control and prestige. But as fabs grew more expensive, this objective was quietly dropped. Now just a few fabs serve almost all companies, and almost all (western) countries. And the glory attaches to the end design, not who fabs the chip. Take, for example, NVidea, a super hot company. Do you know off the top of your head who does their fab? Is it TSMC, Samsung, Chartered, or other? Admiration and valuation of these companies are almost completely independent of fab companies. The same may well happen in launch.
The report:
https://cosmos.esa.int/documents/1866264/1866292/ESA_L4_Expert_Committee_report_Voyage_2050_Moons_of_the_Giant_Planets.pdf
Technically, these proposals seem extremely marginal due to the lack of RTGs. They are proposing, for example, to send 331 kg of batteries to Titan's surface, to support 33 kg of science, and that for only 16 days. Likewise for Enceladeus, 250 kg of batteries to support 23 kg of instruments, again for a few days. If these missions had RTGs, the science return could be hugely greater, with both more mass for instruments and a much longer lifetime. And on the pessimistic side, if these battery missions have some initial problems that require a few days of debugging, the science could be lost completely.
From the viewpoint of science alone, it seems crazy to go to the enormous trouble, expense, and time of an outer planets lander mission leaving out perhaps the most enabling technology. I know there are huge political obstacles, but if a solution to this dilemma could be found (cooperative mission? ESA pays to increase USA plutonium production?) the science return would be enormously greater.
Technically, these proposals seem extremely marginal due to the lack of RTGs.
ESA has been working on Am241 RTGs for some time, strange that they wouldn't use them here.
Technically, these proposals seem extremely marginal due to the lack of RTGs.
ESA has been working on Am241 RTGs for some time, strange that they wouldn't use them here.
Agreed, and this February 2022 course summary on the current status of Am241 RTG technology would seem to buttress your point:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph241/spaugh1/
I realize this is a national prestige matter, but I'd think the prestige attaches to the science, not the launcher. And talking *18 years* in advance, surely some advance in launcher technology can be assumed. And at some point, launch will become a commodity. Perhaps an analogy is research at the South Pole - no one cares what ship brought the equipment, just what the research reveals.
In other words, you want to discuss Starship in this thread.
ESA decides on its science targets decades ahead of launch. I expect that serious design work won't start for another decade. At that time, the design team will be able to evaluate launcher opportunities. Even I expect Starship or perhaps multiple equivalents to be available. However, ESA may have a policy to use use only it's own launch vehicles in its science missions.
Let's circle back to this in a decade.
Technically, these proposals seem extremely marginal due to the lack of RTGs.
ESA has been working on Am241 RTGs for some time, strange that they wouldn't use them here.
Agreed, and this February 2022 course summary on the current status of Am241 RTG technology would seem to buttress your point: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph241/spaugh1/
I expect that only very high level concept designs were considered. They likely had some rules on what level of technological readiness and which launch vehicles could be used. am241 RTGs may not have made that list.
ESA also has been open to collaborations, so RTGs from NASA may be a possibility once they get into serious design.
I realize this is a national prestige matter, but I'd think the prestige attaches to the science, not the launcher. And talking *18 years* in advance, surely some advance in launcher technology can be assumed. And at some point, launch will become a commodity. Perhaps an analogy is research at the South Pole - no one cares what ship brought the equipment, just what the research reveals.
In other words, you want to discuss Starship in this thread.
I completely get your frustration with Starship poking up everywhere.
On the other hand, I worked for 30 years in the semiconductor industry, where you based next year's plan (not to mention plans 18 years out) on technology that was not available yet, but you could see coming. Failure to take future advances into account was a disaster that led quickly to uncompetitive products and likely corporate demise. Space launch technology is not advancing as quickly or reliably as semiconductor technology, but the same idea holds. If you want a mission that will be state of the art in 2042, you need to think of what advances may occur.
As far as launch as a commodity, again I think the semiconductor industry might provide a good example. In the 1980's, semiconductor fabs were thought to be a corporate and national jewel. Every company, and every country, had to have its own fab for control and prestige. But as fabs grew more expensive, this objective was quietly dropped. Now just a few fabs serve almost all companies, and almost all (western) countries. And the glory attaches to the end design, not who fabs the chip. Take, for example, NVidea, a super hot company. Do you know off the top of your head who does their fab? Is it TSMC, Samsung, Chartered, or other? Admiration and valuation of these companies are almost completely independent of fab companies. The same may well happen in launch.
the issue is that starship is designed for lots of mass to leo, its the frame that starlink is hung on. It may be able to do HLS in the next 10 years. Maybe, but no garuntee. All the starship discussions make far reaching assumptions that starship will be able to do literally anything people want it to do. It can do any mission of any type better, and also make julien fries. Long term space flight, land on multiple planets, land on boulder fields and hills, refuel itself, literally anything. All will happen in the next couple years and for basically free as well.
Starship is a bad discusson subject because its a place holder for some magic thing that will solve all problems. It sucks all the oxygen out of the room and leaves you trying to deal with opinions and dreams instead of engineering and facts. Will starhip be cool? Of course. Will it do 5% of what the internet thinks it will? HIGHLY doubtful. Starship is not a serious discussion, all posts about it in the science forums are simply rocket fan fiction.
Starship inevitably ends all current and legitimate discusson about stuff, because it doesn't exist in any form that people invoke. They just say it could do X, and it'll be cheaper/faster/better/whateverer to use starship for it. It derails literally every conversation.
ESA won't plan missions around Starship since it's not European. So there's no point discussing Starship or Starship fans in this thread.
Technically, these proposals seem extremely marginal due to the lack of RTGs.
ESA has been working on Am241 RTGs for some time, strange that they wouldn't use them here.
Agreed, and this February 2022 course summary on the current status of Am241 RTG technology would seem to buttress your point: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph241/spaugh1/
I expect that only very high level concept designs were considered. They likely had some rules on what level of technological readiness and which launch vehicles could be used. am241 RTGs may not have made that list.
The only way this report makes sense to me is as an engineering response to management obstinacy. I could see management saying "Do we REALLY need RTGs? It's an expensive development program..." and engineering saying "OK, we've taken our best shot at designing a mission without RTGs. The best we can do is to spend 2 billion Euros and 15 years to send a mission that's nine-tenths batteries to an outer planet moon, and have it work for only 16 days. We REALLY need RTGs if you want to tackle this science."
The only way this report makes sense to me is as an engineering response to management obstinacy. I could see management saying "Do we REALLY need RTGs? It's an expensive development program..." and engineering saying "OK, we've taken our best shot at designing a mission without RTGs. The best we can do is to spend 2 billion Euros and 15 years to send a mission that's nine-tenths batteries to an outer planet moon, and have it work for only 16 days. We REALLY need RTGs if you want to tackle this science."
This was an assessment of scientific destinations with a very limited assessment of conceivable mission architectures. The goal was to decide on the target, not a mission architecture.
I have not seen the ground rules for the architecture assessment; perhaps you have?
Launch is conceived for the early 2040s, which means serious design and considerations of collaborations is a decade away.
ESA also has been open to collaborations, so RTGs from NASA may be a possibility once they get into serious design.
I'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESA
ESA also has been open to collaborations, so RTGs from NASA may be a possibility once they get into serious design.
I'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESA
Enceladus is a high US Decadal Survey priority. The evaluated Decadal Survey concept mission used RTGs.
We are talking about a mission that wouldn't launch for 15+ years, so lots of time to produce PU for either a NASA or a joint NASA/ESA mission.
BTW, US law requires that NASA provide PU in the form of a finished RTG, and I believe that it also requires that the RTG (and the spacecraft attached to it) be launched by the US.
ESA and NASA have a long history of collaboration, generally pretty successful. Do a search on 'NASA ESA collaboration' and you'll get lots of hits for past, current, and potential mission collaborations. Since Enceladus is a high priority target for both ESA and NASA, collaboration almost certainly will be considered. But again, we are many years away from anything resembling start of design.
I'm not sure I see this happening. The US cannot produce enough PU for its own basic needs. I've a hard time seeing us cancel our own missions to sell PU to ESA
BTW, Lori Glaze has stated repeatedly that the production facilities are not limiting the rate of RTGs, which can be ramped up or down with mission demand.
The lack of funding for missions that would use RTGs is the limiting factor on RTG production.