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.
Ehh... isn't that the long way of saying we don't/won't have all the PU we need? Sure it can be "ramped up", not only will that ALWAYS go slower and cost WAY MORE than expected, but it requires the money to begin with.
Instead, we simply won't start missions that require a significant increase, because everyone knows the budget won't exist for it.
Ehh... isn't that the long way of saying we don't/won't have all the PU we need? Sure it can be "ramped up", not only will that ALWAYS go slower and cost WAY MORE than expected, but it requires the money to begin with.
Instead, we simply won't start missions that require a significant increase, because everyone knows the budget won't exist for it.
Compared to the rest of the cost of a mission, RTGs and the RTG program are cheap.
NASA can't afford new planetary missions to any destination, whether solar or radioisotope powered. If RTGs were free, NASA still doesn't have the funding to start the new underlying missions.
It's like with launch vehicles. If launch were free, NASA still doesn't have the money to start new planetary missions.
There's been a discussion of whether RTG production rate is hindering mission selection. I had time this morning to go back to the OPAG presentations from last fall. I've attached a key slide from Lori Glaze's presentation.
Another point is that for a mission to launch in the early 2040's, you'd want to use RTGs produced in the mid-2030s. There is the nuclear decay, but it turns out that the decay of other components in the package is the driving force on lifetime power. The production rate today likely has little relevance to the potential use of ESA's 2040's mission.
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/opagnov2023/presentations/Tuesday/0915_Glaze.pdf
if ESA does indeed go with an Enceladus orbilander as their flagship mission, what do you think NASA will choose are their top priority mission after Uranus, since for them it was also Enceladus? Not sure if there was another mission in the ranking just below that one?
if ESA does indeed go with an Enceladus orbilander as their flagship mission, what do you think NASA will choose are their top priority mission after Uranus, since for them it was also Enceladus? Not sure if there was another mission in the ranking just below that one?
I think that question will be answered by the next Decadal Survey, which should start about 2030 and be published about 2032. There seems to be more priorities than budget remaining from the last one for that question to be formally answered before then.
For Enceladus and NASA, NASA could select a New Frontiers Enceladus multi-flyby mission that would arrive approximately a decade before the European mission. While it might seem like competition, the European mission would benefit from learning more about Enceladus.
I also expect that ESA and NASA will talk about collaboration on the ESA Voyage 2050 mission. They have done so on possible Uranus missions and are collaborating on many. The ideas in the ESA document for an Enceladus mission are ambitious. They may be far more doable with collaboration.
if ESA does indeed go with an Enceladus orbilander as their flagship mission, what do you think NASA will choose are their top priority mission after Uranus, since for them it was also Enceladus? Not sure if there was another mission in the ranking just below that one?
I think that question will be answered by the next Decadal Survey, which should start about 2030 and be published about 2032. There seems to be more priorities than budget remaining from the last one for that question to be formally answered before then.
For Enceladus and NASA, NASA could select a New Frontiers Enceladus multi-flyby mission that would arrive approximately a decade before the European mission. While it might seem like competition, the European mission would benefit from learning more about Enceladus.
I also expect that ESA and NASA will talk about collaboration on the ESA Voyage 2050 mission. They have done so on possible Uranus missions and are collaborating on many. The ideas in the ESA document for an Enceladus mission are ambitious. They may be far more doable with collaboration.
Oh I agree they would collaborate on both missions, but if Enceladus is ESA led, I think NASA will want their own flagship mission too, assuming this comes after Uranus.