-
VERITAS and EnVision
by
Orionwillstay
on 05 Sep, 2021 03:04
-
My first post at NASASpaceflight.com - greetings to all!
I'm very excited about the recent selection of 3 missions to Venus, and yet puzzled by the similarities (or differences) between VERITAS and EnVision. I realize that EnVision features atmospheric studies of Venus and has a ground-penetrating radar - both will be absent on VERITAS, while VERITAS will have better ground-mapping coverage of Venus, as well as better altimetry and gravity measurement accuracy. But may I know what makes the differences? Is that because of the presence or absence of an equipment, or other factors like using a different orbit or different operational approaches?
Also, apart from the ppt slides from VEXAG, may I know if there's a detailed proposal/report for VERITAS out there, similar to EnVision's Yellow Book please?
Many thanks,
William
-
#1
by
dsmillman
on 05 Sep, 2021 08:01
-
-
#2
by
Orionwillstay
on 05 Sep, 2021 14:37
-
-
#3
by
vjkane
on 05 Sep, 2021 15:38
-
After their selections, I put together a table comparing the VERITAS and EnVision missions. A big caveat - I don't understand SAR systems and variations, so I may well have captured information incorrectly.
Key difference is in the types of radar systems including their frequencies, but the nuances of these are beyond my knowledge. What I did get out:
VERITAS - strengths
- Global mapping at 30 m resolution
- Targeted mapping of ~27% of the surface at 15 m
- High quality global altimetry maps
- <0.2% of the surface studied for deformation changes
EnVision - strengths
- More intense studies over the 30% of surface judged to be most interesting based on previous maps
- 30 m resolution over the entirety of the focal areas, 2-3% of the planet (within focal areas) mapped at 10 m
- ~7% of the surface studied for deformational changes
- Stereo coverage over the focal areas that will also produce a lower quality altimetry map than VERITAS
- Radiometric studies over 93% of the planet
- I believe that the subsurface sounding radar will map almost the entire planet
Both missions will carry what appears to be an identical/very similar Venus Emmisity Mapper that will map surface composition in a few bands plus some studies of clouds and water vapor. EnVision will also carry two addition spectrometers for atmospheric studies.
Net: Both missions will overlap goals for mapping the surface at 30 m and in using the VEMS instrument. Otherwise, their goals appear to be complementary.
-
#4
by
Orionwillstay
on 05 Sep, 2021 16:54
-
After their selections, I put together a table comparing the VERITAS and EnVision missions. A big caveat - I don't understand SAR systems and variations, so I may well have captured information incorrectly.
Key difference is in the types of radar systems including their frequencies, but the nuances of these are beyond my knowledge. What I did get out:
VERITAS - strengths
- Global mapping at 30 m resolution
- Targeted mapping of ~27% of the surface at 15 m
- High quality global altimetry maps
- <0.2% of the surface studied for deformation changes
EnVision - strengths
- More intense studies over the 30% of surface judged to be most interesting based on previous maps
- 30 m resolution over the entirety of the focal areas, 2-3% of the planet (within focal areas) mapped at 10 m
- ~7% of the surface studied for deformational changes
- Stereo coverage over the focal areas that will also produce a lower quality altimetry map than VERITAS
- Radiometric studies over 93% of the planet
- I believe that the subsurface sounding radar will map almost the entire planet
Both missions will carry what appears to be an identical/very similar Venus Emmisity Mapper that will map surface composition in a few bands plus some studies of clouds and water vapor. EnVision will also carry two addition spectrometers for atmospheric studies.
Net: Both missions will overlap goals for mapping the surface at 30 m and in using the VEMS instrument. Otherwise, their goals appear to be complementary.
Thank you very much vjkane!
In addition to the features you've pointed out for each of the mission, I read that VERITAS will conduct gravity measurement better than what EnVision will do. Wonder if that's something to do with the orbit of each? Seems VERITAS will have an orbit more circular than EnVision's, if I'm not mistake.
-
#5
by
vjkane
on 05 Sep, 2021 17:21
-
VERITAS orbit: 180 x 255 km, 88.5°
EnVision orbit: 220 x 520 km, 88.5
It would make sense that VERITAS would make better gravity measurements than EnVision given its tighter orbit.
At a briefing just after the VERITAS selection, the PI stated that the mission has considerable mass margin and hinted (strongly I think) that additional instruments of opportunity might be considered*. If launch is now ~2028, they may have time to consider such an option. Another possibility might be to add a communications relay to the orbiter to support possbile future landed or balloon missions.
*The idea of prime missions carrying CubeSats to deploy has been suggested several times and is the plan for the Hera mission. I have wondered about a spacecraft hosting attached CubeSat units that contain the instrument and supporting electronics but that have simple (a power cable and a USB cable?) interfaces to the main spacecraft. Might simplify the design of the "CubeSats" (don't need to be independent spacecraft) but also minimizes the complexity of the interface and hosting of additional instruments. But I'm not a spacecraft engineer, so this may just be a wild speculation.
-
#6
by
Orionwillstay
on 06 Sep, 2021 01:07
-
VERITAS orbit: 180 x 255 km, 88.5°
EnVision orbit: 220 x 520 km, 88.5
It would make sense that VERITAS would make better gravity measurements than EnVision given its tighter orbit.
At a briefing just after the VERITAS selection, the PI stated that the mission has considerable mass margin and hinted (strongly I think) that additional instruments of opportunity might be considered*. If launch is now ~2028, they may have time to consider such an option. Another possibility might be to add a communications relay to the orbiter to support possbile future landed or balloon missions.
*The idea of prime missions carrying CubeSats to deploy has been suggested several times and is the plan for the Hera mission. I have wondered about a spacecraft hosting attached CubeSat units that contain the instrument and supporting electronics but that have simple (a power cable and a USB cable?) interfaces to the main spacecraft. Might simplify the design of the "CubeSats" (don't need to be independent spacecraft) but also minimizes the complexity of the interface and hosting of additional instruments. But I'm not a spacecraft engineer, so this may just be a wild speculation.
Maybe adding Cupid's Arrow to VERITAS
~ that will be even more scientifically appealing and similar to the VOX concept you had wrote about in your blog.
I fully agree that CubeSats add value to the prime missions and am very exciting to see more and more proposals of such lately! Not a spacecraft engineer here as well, but I also think that CubeSats having simple interfaces with the main spacecraft do deserve R&D - they'll be like extra pair of "hands" to the main, and can be immensely useful especially for a lander mission.
-
#7
by
vjkane
on 06 Sep, 2021 16:38
-
At a briefing just after the VERITAS selection, the PI stated that the mission has considerable mass margin and hinted (strongly I think) that additional instruments of opportunity might be considered*. If launch is now ~2028, they may have time to consider such an option. Another possibility might be to add a communications relay to the orbiter to support possbile future landed or balloon missions.
*The idea of prime missions carrying CubeSats to deploy has been suggested several times and is the plan for the Hera mission. I have wondered about a spacecraft hosting attached CubeSat units that contain the instrument and supporting electronics but that have simple (a power cable and a USB cable?) interfaces to the main spacecraft. Might simplify the design of the "CubeSats" (don't need to be independent spacecraft) but also minimizes the complexity of the interface and hosting of additional instruments. But I'm not a spacecraft engineer, so this may just be a wild speculation.
Maybe adding Cupid's Arrow to VERITAS ~ that will be even more scientifically appealing and similar to the VOX concept you had wrote about in your blog.
I fully agree that CubeSats add value to the prime missions and am very exciting to see more and more proposals of such lately! Not a spacecraft engineer here as well, but I also think that CubeSats having simple interfaces with the main spacecraft do deserve R&D - they'll be like extra pair of "hands" to the main, and can be immensely useful especially for a lander mission.
With the DAVINCI+ atmospheric probe, there's no need for Cupid's Arrow.
-
#8
by
Orionwillstay
on 07 Sep, 2021 17:00
-
At a briefing just after the VERITAS selection, the PI stated that the mission has considerable mass margin and hinted (strongly I think) that additional instruments of opportunity might be considered*. If launch is now ~2028, they may have time to consider such an option. Another possibility might be to add a communications relay to the orbiter to support possbile future landed or balloon missions.
*The idea of prime missions carrying CubeSats to deploy has been suggested several times and is the plan for the Hera mission. I have wondered about a spacecraft hosting attached CubeSat units that contain the instrument and supporting electronics but that have simple (a power cable and a USB cable?) interfaces to the main spacecraft. Might simplify the design of the "CubeSats" (don't need to be independent spacecraft) but also minimizes the complexity of the interface and hosting of additional instruments. But I'm not a spacecraft engineer, so this may just be a wild speculation.
Maybe adding Cupid's Arrow to VERITAS ~ that will be even more scientifically appealing and similar to the VOX concept you had wrote about in your blog.
I fully agree that CubeSats add value to the prime missions and am very exciting to see more and more proposals of such lately! Not a spacecraft engineer here as well, but I also think that CubeSats having simple interfaces with the main spacecraft do deserve R&D - they'll be like extra pair of "hands" to the main, and can be immensely useful especially for a lander mission.
With the DAVINCI+ atmospheric probe, there's no need for Cupid's Arrow.
I see there might be much less merit for Cupid's Arrow now that we have DAVINCI+, but would that mean the data for the upper-most part of the Venusian atmosphere being left out, assuming DAVINCI+ will not start collecting atmospheric data until the heat shield and backshell drop?
-
#9
by
vjkane
on 07 Sep, 2021 18:46
-
I see there might be much less merit for Cupid's Arrow now that we have DAVINCI+, but would that mean the data for the upper-most part of the Venusian atmosphere being left out, assuming DAVINCI+ will not start collecting atmospheric data until the heat shield and backshell drop?
Cupid's Arrow was going to get as deep as it could to get well-mixed atmosphere (although there apparently was controversy whether or not it would get deep enough to do that). It wasn't going to sample a profile of the atmosphere - dive, collect sample, ascend, process sample. At best it would add just one point to the sampling column.
-
#10
by
Orionwillstay
on 08 Sep, 2021 14:46
-
I see there might be much less merit for Cupid's Arrow now that we have DAVINCI+, but would that mean the data for the upper-most part of the Venusian atmosphere being left out, assuming DAVINCI+ will not start collecting atmospheric data until the heat shield and backshell drop?
Cupid's Arrow was going to get as deep as it could to get well-mixed atmosphere (although there apparently was controversy whether or not it would get deep enough to do that). It wasn't going to sample a profile of the atmosphere - dive, collect sample, ascend, process sample. At best it would add just one point to the sampling column.
Understood
Thanks vjkane!
-
#11
by
Don2
on 09 Sep, 2021 03:24
-
The radars for both missions appear to be developed by the same JPL team, lead by Scott Hensley. Presumably they will try to build radars with complementary capabilities.
VERITAS uses an interferometric design at 8GHz. The strength of the mission is global topography, with a 250m post spacing and 5m height accuracy. It can measure surface deformation with 2mm precision. The radar is called VISAR. They mention a 300W TWTA, which is a lot less powerful than the EnVision radar.
EnVision is more imagery focused. It operates at 3 GHz. It is sensitive to polarization which can measure surface roughness. At one time they were talking about 1m resolution over small areas, but at present the highest resolution they are promising is 10m. The instrument is called VenSAR. Transmit power is 2kw and it has a 5.8 by 0.7 m antenna.This radar appears to be a lot more powerful than VISAR. It can also function as a radiometer, and measure temperature with 1.7K accuracy.
Link to ESA yellow book.
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/5763359/5763378/EnVision_YB_final.pdf/e9612355-67de-42a3-c25a-af1683f6fda3?t=1616679461807
-
#12
by
vjkane
on 09 Sep, 2021 23:09
-
EnVision is more imagery focused... At one time they were talking about 1m resolution over small areas, but at present the highest resolution they are promising is 10m.
The 1 m resolution was based on a prior plan to use a European-supplied SAR instrument instead of the JPL-supplied instrument.
-
#13
by
Don2
on 10 Sep, 2021 00:36
-
EnVision is more imagery focused... At one time they were talking about 1m resolution over small areas, but at present the highest resolution they are promising is 10m.
The 1 m resolution was based on a prior plan to use a European-supplied SAR instrument instead of the JPL-supplied instrument.
Yes, I know, but the specs for power, antenna size and frequency don't seem to have changed much from the earlier European radar. I wonder why they backed off on their performance promises? 1m resolution would be real nice, even if it only covered a small area.
There is a December 2020 paper that compares the two radars. I don't have access, but maybe somebody here does.
S. Hensley, B. Campbell, D. Perkovic-Martin, K. Wheeler, W. Kiefer and R. Ghail, "VISAR and VenSAR: Two Proposed Radar Investigations of Venus," 2020 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf20), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/RadarConf2043947.2020.9266323.
-
#14
by
Orionwillstay
on 12 Sep, 2021 14:42
-
EnVision is more imagery focused... At one time they were talking about 1m resolution over small areas, but at present the highest resolution they are promising is 10m.
The 1 m resolution was based on a prior plan to use a European-supplied SAR instrument instead of the JPL-supplied instrument.
Yes, I know, but the specs for power, antenna size and frequency don't seem to have changed much from the earlier European radar. I wonder why they backed off on their performance promises? 1m resolution would be real nice, even if it only covered a small area.
There is a December 2020 paper that compares the two radars. I don't have access, but maybe somebody here does.
S. Hensley, B. Campbell, D. Perkovic-Martin, K. Wheeler, W. Kiefer and R. Ghail, "VISAR and VenSAR: Two Proposed Radar Investigations of Venus," 2020 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf20), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/RadarConf2043947.2020.9266323.
Thanks for the specs of the two radars Don2. Wow 1m resolution would be like revealing the Venus surface in photo quality, the "MRS" for Venus!
-
#15
by
vjkane
on 12 Sep, 2021 20:58
-
Thanks for the specs of the two radars Don2. Wow 1m resolution would be like revealing the Venus surface in photo quality, the "MRS" for Venus!
EnVision will no longer have the 1 m spot resolution. That potential capability was dropped long ago when the mission switched from a potential European-based SAR derived from an Earth observation mission to one from JPL.
-
#16
by
Orionwillstay
on 13 Sep, 2021 00:49
-
Thanks for the specs of the two radars Don2. Wow 1m resolution would be like revealing the Venus surface in photo quality, the "MRS" for Venus!
EnVision will no longer have the 1 m spot resolution. That potential capability was dropped long ago when the mission switched from a potential European-based SAR derived from an Earth observation mission to one from JPL.
Such a lost opportunity! Perhaps they've encountered technical / budgetary difficulties?
-
#17
by
vjkane
on 13 Sep, 2021 01:02
-
Thanks for the specs of the two radars Don2. Wow 1m resolution would be like revealing the Venus surface in photo quality, the "MRS" for Venus!
EnVision will no longer have the 1 m spot resolution. That potential capability was dropped long ago when the mission switched from a potential European-based SAR derived from an Earth observation mission to one from JPL.
Such a lost opportunity! Perhaps they've encountered technical / budgetary difficulties?
The mission could not meet the budget limitations of ESA's medium class missions without NASA contributing the SAR instrument. I haven't read the dollar (or Euro) value of that contribution, but I suspect that it is substantial.
The EnVision plan to study only a portion of Venus also is another cost saving feature, although I don't know whether that is in reducing the power requirements on the spacecraft to transmit the additional data, the limitations of existing Earth tracking stations (I don't know if EnVision will use just European deep space stations or NASA's also), operations costs, or all the above.
I did look through the published mission plans and pulled out the following information about the data volumes for EnVision and VERITAS:
VERITAS: >40Tbits, >14.8Tbits/year
EnVision: 210 Tbits, 35/Tbits/year
Don2 in a previous post has mentioned that the EnVision SAR instrument is more focused on imagery, and this may explain the difference. Note that the higher EnVision data rates given the much smaller area of Venus that it will study compared to VERITAS.
However, I did once read that the key factor in SAR data rates is how much compression is done on the spacecraft. Some of the difference may be because EnVision has less compression, either for greater scientific fidelity or because of limitations on the spacecraft. Does anyone here know?
-
#18
by
Orionwillstay
on 13 Sep, 2021 02:42
-
Thanks for the specs of the two radars Don2. Wow 1m resolution would be like revealing the Venus surface in photo quality, the "MRS" for Venus!
EnVision will no longer have the 1 m spot resolution. That potential capability was dropped long ago when the mission switched from a potential European-based SAR derived from an Earth observation mission to one from JPL.
Such a lost opportunity! Perhaps they've encountered technical / budgetary difficulties?
The mission could not meet the budget limitations of ESA's medium class missions without NASA contributing the SAR instrument. I haven't read the dollar (or Euro) value of that contribution, but I suspect that it is substantial.
The EnVision plan to study only a portion of Venus also is another cost saving feature, although I don't know whether that is in reducing the power requirements on the spacecraft to transmit the additional data, the limitations of existing Earth tracking stations (I don't know if EnVision will use just European deep space stations or NASA's also), operations costs, or all the above.
I did look through the published mission plans and pulled out the following information about the data volumes for EnVision and VERITAS:
VERITAS: >40Tbits, >14.8Tbits/year
EnVision: 210 Tbits, 35/Tbits/year
Don2 in a previous post has mentioned that the EnVision SAR instrument is more focused on imagery, and this may explain the difference. Note that the higher EnVision data rates given the much smaller area of Venus that it will study compared to VERITAS.
However, I did once read that the key factor in SAR data rates is how much compression is done on the spacecraft. Some of the difference may be because EnVision has less compression, either for greater scientific fidelity or because of limitations on the spacecraft. Does anyone here know?
Thanks for your insight re the budgetary issue vjkane!
The data rate of EnVision is much higher than that of VERITAS while it will study a smaller area of Venus - may I know the reason behind please? Thank you!
-
#19
by
vjkane
on 13 Sep, 2021 14:23
-
The data rate of EnVision is much higher than that of VERITAS while it will study a smaller area of Venus - may I know the reason behind please? Thank you!
As suggested in the previous post, two possibilities:
The greater focus on imagery and repeat coverage for change detection may cause data rates to be higher for EnVision all other things being equal
SAR instruments, as I understand them, inherently produce very large amounts of data off the instrument that must be processed and reduced to provide information, and the secondary products are smaller. We don't know if EnVision and VERITAS will perform equal levels of onboard processing and data compression or not.
-
#20
by
Orionwillstay
on 13 Sep, 2021 16:49
-
The data rate of EnVision is much higher than that of VERITAS while it will study a smaller area of Venus - may I know the reason behind please? Thank you!
As suggested in the previous post, two possibilities:
The greater focus on imagery and repeat coverage for change detection may cause data rates to be higher for EnVision all other things being equal
SAR instruments, as I understand them, inherently produce very large amounts of data off the instrument that must be processed and reduced to provide information, and the secondary products are smaller. We don't know if EnVision and VERITAS will perform equal levels of onboard processing and data compression or not.
Understood. Much thanks vjkane!
-
#21
by
Don2
on 14 Sep, 2021 02:19
-
VERITAS processes radar data on board the spacecraft, which reduces the data rate from 691 Mbs to 120 kbps (more than 1000 fold).
Envision is going to return raw radar data.
The VERITAS radar is a single mode instrument that does one job very well. The Envision radar has multiple operational modes and appears to be more flexible but there is a cost in performance.
For example, VERITAS produces topography with 5m accuracy at 250m spacing (a 125m option is under study). Envision can produce altimetry data with 20m accuracy at 3km spacing in altimeter mode. In stereo SAR mode it can achieve 25-50m accuracy at 240m spacing. This is an example of duplication of capability which hopefully will be eliminated now that both missions have been selected.
For comparison the Magellan radar in altimeter mode achieved 100m accuracy at 15-20 km spacing. In stereo SAR mode Magellan achieved 50 m accuracy at 400-500 m spacing, but that data only covered 17% of the surface.
(These numbers are from the 2020 Radar Conference paper)
-
#22
by
Orionwillstay
on 14 Sep, 2021 14:21
-
VERITAS processes radar data on board the spacecraft, which reduces the data rate from 691 Mbs to 120 kbps (more than 1000 fold).
Envision is going to return raw radar data.
The VERITAS radar is a single mode instrument that does one job very well. The Envision radar has multiple operational modes and appears to be more flexible but there is a cost in performance.
For example, VERITAS produces topography with 5m accuracy at 250m spacing (a 125m option is under study). Envision can produce altimetry data with 20m accuracy at 3km spacing in altimeter mode. In stereo SAR mode it can achieve 25-50m accuracy at 240m spacing. This is an example of duplication of capability which hopefully will be eliminated now that both missions have been selected.
For comparison the Magellan radar in altimeter mode achieved 100m accuracy at 15-20 km spacing. In stereo SAR mode Magellan achieved 50 m accuracy at 400-500 m spacing, but that data only covered 17% of the surface.
(These numbers are from the 2020 Radar Conference paper)
Thank you Don2. It's so nice to see how the two missions complementing each other (oh and DAVINCI+!) - it will be great that the respective NASA and ESA teams deepen their cooperation on the missions!
-
#23
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 Nov, 2022 15:42
-
twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1588571181229170690
Tom Young, chair of the Psyche independent review board, is delivering the results of the review in an online town hall. Finds issues with the mission management but also broader issues at JPL with staffing and erosion of technical acumen.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1588571817299660800Wow: NASA’s Lori Glaze says that the agency will delay the next JPL-led Discovery class mission, VERITAS, by three years to no earlier than 2031 as a result of this review.
-
#24
by
vjkane
on 05 Nov, 2022 01:46
-
My take: JPL has been too successful in securing new missions. It’s website lists 15 future missions and doesn’t list MSR which is a massive undertaking
From the press release:
https://t.co/8X52R4UfKCTo support JPL’s staffing needs, NASA anticipates delaying the launch of the Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectroscopy (VERITAS) mission for at least three years. This choice would allow experienced staff at JPL to complete development of strategic flagship missions further along in their development. A delay of VERITAS, a mission in early formulation, would also free up additional resources to enable the continuation of Psyche and positively affect other planetary funding needs.
VERITAS is a JPL-led mission designed to search for water and volcanic activity on Venus. It was selected in 2021 as one of two Venus proposals for the agency’s Discovery Program, a line of low-cost, competitive missions led by a single principal investigator. The mission, with planned contributions from the Italian Space Agency, German Aerospace Center, and French Space Agency, was originally expected to launch in December 2027. The mission is now scheduled to launch no earlier than 2031.
-
#25
by
vjkane
on 08 Nov, 2022 01:00
-
From today's VEXAG meeting:
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1589686776142110722Marcia Smith
@SpcPlcyOnline
·
7h
An audience member [I think it was Sue Smrekar, VERITAS PI] said as annoyed [not her word] as the VEXAG community is, also thankful it wasn't worse w/VERITAS cancelled outright. But notes Glaze talks about "if" it is restarted, not when, so just one step up from cancellation.
Marcia Smith
@SpcPlcyOnline
·
7h
Glaze did said "if." Answer depends on JPL progress in fixing problems and how Europa Clipper, NISAR and Mars Sample Return are doing. If Clipper and NISAR slip, $ implications "catastrophic" and could affect MSR. But if all is well w/those, restart VERITAS in 2025 time frame.
-
#26
by
deadman1204
on 08 Nov, 2022 14:16
-
People are missing that its not just money. JPL doesn't have the bandwidth to work on Veritas right now.
It'll be good to have the next discovery or 2, maybe even NF5 ensured to not be JPL. Other places can do missions, and JPL needs time to get their house in order (which will take several years due to the workload).
-
#27
by
ccdengr
on 08 Nov, 2022 15:41
-
It'll be good to have the next discovery or 2, maybe even NF5 ensured to not be JPL.
Alliances with NASA centers for a particular mission are made long before the proposals go in. Anyone who allied with JPL will be SOL and might just as well not propose. It's not like you can easily switch after the proposal is written. All the NF5 proposers have picked long ago, though maybe there will be a lot of scrambling to go elsewhere. But the non-JPL mission proposals have a huge advantage.
-
#28
by
deadman1204
on 08 Nov, 2022 16:41
-
It'll be good to have the next discovery or 2, maybe even NF5 ensured to not be JPL.
Alliances with NASA centers for a particular mission are made long before the proposals go in. Anyone who allied with JPL will be SOL and might just as well not propose. It's not like you can easily switch after the proposal is written. All the NF5 proposers have picked long ago, though maybe there will be a lot of scrambling to go elsewhere. But the non-JPL mission proposals have a huge advantage.
I agree that it sucks for the proposals that work with JPL. However, if APL was having issues, would you still advocate for skipping NF5? How does stopping everything for a couple years seem fair to everyone who isn't at JPL? At the end of the day, this is about the science, not any specific group of people. We have to pick a single proposal, so most issues WON'T get a mission anyways. There are and will be valid and good proposals from groups not working through JPL for NF5 and the next discovery mission.
-
#29
by
redliox
on 08 Nov, 2022 20:12
-
Although technically not related to these missions, yet obviously still going to the same target AND part of the Discovery program, is Davinci+ affected by Psyche's delay? I can only assume less so since Goddard and JPL are separate entities. Was curious if the issue affected further elements of the Discovery program.
-
#30
by
vjkane
on 08 Nov, 2022 21:52
-
Although technically not related to these missions, yet obviously still going to the same target AND part of the Discovery program, is Davinci+ affected by Psyche's delay? I can only assume less so since Goddard and JPL are separate entities. Was curious if the issue affected further elements of the Discovery program.
The problems at JPL don't apply to DAVINCI. However, NASA is investigating whether the problems uncovered at JPL also apply to Goddard and JH APL. They have different workloads and management structures, but they have the same competition for people with the commercial space sector as JPL.
So likely no for DAVINCI, but it is possible there could be similar problems. Goddard also has many projects including one flagship.
-
#31
by
Don2
on 11 Nov, 2022 18:08
-
I wonder if the money that was allocated for VERITAS could be used to accelerate DAVINCI by a couple of years, assuming Goddard has the capacity? Some of that money will have to go to pay for the Psyche overrun, but there should be quite a bit left over.
-
#32
by
deadman1204
on 11 Nov, 2022 18:31
-
I wonder if the money that was allocated for VERITAS could be used to accelerate DAVINCI by a couple of years, assuming Goddard has the capacity? Some of that money will have to go to pay for the Psyche overrun, but there should be quite a bit left over.
that money is going to buying down all the risk with all the other jpl programs. Its gonna take a bunch of money to right the ship
-
#33
by
vjkane
on 11 Nov, 2022 21:35
-
I wonder if the money that was allocated for VERITAS could be used to accelerate DAVINCI by a couple of years, assuming Goddard has the capacity? Some of that money will have to go to pay for the Psyche overrun, but there should be quite a bit left over.
that money is going to buying down all the risk with all the other jpl programs. Its gonna take a bunch of money to right the ship
Lori Glaze has been quoted saying that the money saved by delaying VERITAS isn't enough to cover the costs of the delayed and now longer Psyche mission.
In addition, JPL has a lot of hiring (and perhaps giving raises to existing employees) to fill out its ranks.
-
#34
by
Don2
on 12 Nov, 2022 05:35
-
-
#35
by
Star One
on 12 Nov, 2022 09:36
-
I assuming that at the base of the funding issue is politics that there hasn’t been enough budget given by the politicians, or is this an allocation issue?
-
#36
by
Don2
on 12 Nov, 2022 18:23
-
I assuming that at the base of the funding issue is politics that there hasn’t been enough budget given by the politicians, or is this an allocation issue?
The root cause of the funding issues is the failure to manage flagship mission costs, in particular Europa Clipper. That was sold as a mission that was going to cost $2.5 billion or so. Now it is costing $5 billion. If that had been kept on target then they could have flown an additional Discovery mission and a New Frontiers mission.
-
#37
by
Star One
on 12 Nov, 2022 18:55
-
I assuming that at the base of the funding issue is politics that there hasn’t been enough budget given by the politicians, or is this an allocation issue?
The root cause of the funding issues is the failure to manage flagship mission costs, in particular Europa Clipper. That was sold as a mission that was going to cost $2.5 billion or so. Now it is costing $5 billion. If that had been kept on target then they could have flown an additional Discovery mission and a New Frontiers mission.
Has any recent flagship mission ever come in on its initial budget allocation though.
-
#38
by
deadman1204
on 14 Nov, 2022 14:10
-
I assuming that at the base of the funding issue is politics that there hasn’t been enough budget given by the politicians, or is this an allocation issue?
The root cause of the funding issues is the failure to manage flagship mission costs, in particular Europa Clipper. That was sold as a mission that was going to cost $2.5 billion or so. Now it is costing $5 billion. If that had been kept on target then they could have flown an additional Discovery mission and a New Frontiers mission.
Has any recent flagship mission ever come in on its initial budget allocation though.
Its more that the missions are deliberately undersold on price. They should have known that the original price tag was lowballing.
-
#39
by
Blackstar
on 14 Nov, 2022 15:10
-
Its more that the missions are deliberately undersold on price. They should have known that the original price tag was lowballing.
That's part of it. But another part is that the mission that gets flown is not the same as the one that is initially proposed. Often things get added, which drives up the costs. The people who add those things accept that the costs increase. It's not a surprise.
I think it's important to break out of the mindset that the initial cost estimate is somehow holy or good or sacrosanct. It is the start of the discussion, not something that has to be upheld at the expense of other things. Cost increases above the initial estimates do have impacts elsewhere (leading to delaying or canceling other missions), but cost estimates should not be considered in absolute terms, yes/no/good/bad.
-
#40
by
vjkane
on 25 Jan, 2023 02:47
-
The Planetary Science Advisory Committee has issued it's latest findings
https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Dec%202022%20PAC%20Findings_Final.pdf (advise to NASA) which includes the following on VERITAS:
2) VERITAS delay decision Finding: The PAC recognizes that VERITAS will provide important new science results about Venus that are complementary to other recently selected Venus missions. The decision to delay VERITAS’s launch has been met with significant disappointment in the planetary science community and raised concerns and fears regarding the potential need for additional mitigation measures impacting VERITAS and other NASA efforts in the future. The PAC also notes the negative impact of standing down a selected mission due to external issues on potential PIs and on scientists’ participation in future missions. However, the PAC recognizes that the circumstances surrounding the Psyche delay had created great stress on JPL personnel and on the PSD budget that must be mitigated in some way. We thank PSD and the IRB chair for the detailed presentation of the broader issues that led to the decision to stand down VERITAS.
Recommendation: Both the PAC and the AGs strongly support launch of VERITAS on its new schedule, or sooner, should the situation allow. We request that the process for restarting VERITAS and the metrics that will be used to support this decision be clearly defined and communicated to the community as soon as possible. Finally, we strongly support the importance of competitive selections in the Discovery program. As a result, the PAC recommends that the launch of VERITAS should be prioritized over a possible new Discovery mission selection. In the event that the budget is a limitation in future years, Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey guidelines for dealing with budget shortfalls should be
followed.
As I understand this, this is the official advisory committee to NASA for the planetary exploration program. My understanding is that NASA's managers will take this recommendation seriously.
-
#41
by
vjkane
on 25 Jan, 2023 19:07
-
The Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences has issued it's latest findings
This is the Planetary Science Advisory Committee (PAC), which is part of the NASA Advisory Council.
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/nac/science-advisory-committees/pac
That is not the same as the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences (CAPS), which is a subset of the Space Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
I stand corrected and have modified the original post.
-
#42
by
deadman1204
on 07 Mar, 2023 00:31
-
Does anyone know why NASA choose VERITAS for the delay over DAVINCI? I'm not trying to imply one is better than the other, simply curious why VERITAS was the one chosen.
-
#43
by
briantipton
on 07 Mar, 2023 01:24
-
Does anyone know why NASA choose VERITAS for the delay over DAVINCI? I'm not trying to imply one is better than the other, simply curious why VERITAS was the one chosen.
The reason for the delay was concerns about the workload at JPL. VERITAS is a JPL managed mission, DAVINCI is led by GFSC. This decision came out in response to the post-mortem on the Psyche delay which identified JPL being over-subscribed with programs as one of the causes.
-
#44
by
Star One
on 09 Mar, 2023 20:30
-
The Future of Venus exploration:
-
#45
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 29 Mar, 2023 16:40
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1641078389963366401In a presentation at Space Science Week, Sue Smrekar says the earliest VERITAS can now launch is late 2029, which she argues is preferable over 2031 to deconflict with DAVINCI and EnVision and lower overall cost. Need "modest" bridge funding in FY23 and 24 to do so.
-
#46
by
Don2
on 01 Apr, 2023 04:57
-
I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.
What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.
Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.
If they are short of funds I think they should look at delaying new starts. CLPS in particular has committed to six missions but has so far delivered nothing at all. I don't think any new CLPS landers should be funded until they deliver some successes. They can also delay future Discovery, Simplex and New Frontiers competitions.
The recent discovery of an active volcanic vent on Venus shows the potential for discoveries in new data. If one surface change can be identified in data taken one year apart, there should be several dozen in data taken 35 years apart. Mars is a wonderful planet to study, but it doesn't have active volcanic processes.
-
#47
by
Blackstar
on 01 Apr, 2023 12:36
-
I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.
What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.
Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.
Listen to the second half of this discussion:
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242I think they do a pretty good job of explaining it:
-NASA's planetary program is short of funds
-JPL has a heavy workload, and that was identified as a problem by the Psyche review board
-VERITAS is a JPL program, making it a target
-JPL already has its hands full with other programs, particularly Mars sample return
VERITAS therefore fell at the center of all those intersecting circles, making it the obvious thing to get rid of. However, NASA didn't want to outright cancel it. It is possible that some money could be put back into VERITAS to shore it up, the $1.5 million was a last-minute thing because this issue came up so late in the budget cycle.
I think a couple of things that made it easier to justify this decision is that NASA already has another Venus mission underway, and Europe already has another Venus orbiter with radar underway. So the people at the very top, who don't know the difference between one Venus mission or another could be okay with cutting one of them, figuring that Venus would not be completely ignored.
Given the circumstances, this appears to be a pretty obvious choice. Not ideal, but obvious.
-
#48
by
Athelstane
on 06 Apr, 2023 00:34
-
I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.
What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.
Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.
Listen to the second half of this discussion:
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242
I think they do a pretty good job of explaining it:
-NASA's planetary program is short of funds
-JPL has a heavy workload, and that was identified as a problem by the Psyche review board
-VERITAS is a JPL program, making it a target
-JPL already has its hands full with other programs, particularly Mars sample return
VERITAS therefore fell at the center of all those intersecting circles, making it the obvious thing to get rid of. However, NASA didn't want to outright cancel it. It is possible that some money could be put back into VERITAS to shore it up, the $1.5 million was a last-minute thing because this issue came up so late in the budget cycle.
I think a couple of things that made it easier to justify this decision is that NASA already has another Venus mission underway, and Europe already has another Venus orbiter with radar underway. So the people at the very top, who don't know the difference between one Venus mission or another could be okay with cutting one of them, figuring that Venus would not be completely ignored.
Given the circumstances, this appears to be a pretty obvious choice. Not ideal, but obvious.
I think it stands emphasizing that Casey Dreier is arguing that this was fundamentally a
political decision, the workforce management issues at JPL really being a fig leaf. (Most of the actual fabrication work would be done at Lockheed, after all.) Dreier contends that with the squeeze being imposed by MSR's funding wedge, something had to go to give the science mission directorate some
fiscal breathing room. And of all the other missions on the plate, VERITAS was the least protected politically. It was not far along; it was at JPL, not Goddard (where DaVinci+ is being run, and like all Goddard missions, sure to be protected by the Maryland congressional delegation), and it was one of two new Venus missions, making a redundancy argument easier to sustain.
It's ugly, but I think Dreier's logic makes sense. Alas.
-
#49
by
Blackstar
on 06 Apr, 2023 02:55
-
I think it stands emphasizing that Casey Dreier is arguing that this was fundamentally a political decision, the workforce management issues at JPL really being a fig leaf. (Most of the actual fabrication work would be done at Lockheed, after all.) Dreier
Almost by definition, budget decisions are political, right?
Also, go look at the Psyche review board's comments about JPL management and workforce.
-
#50
by
redliox
on 06 Apr, 2023 06:43
-
Considering the insufficient personnel between VERITAS and Psyche, as if funding issues weren't enough in past, is it safe to say there's a limited number of researchers/scientists/engineers across America? I was curious if this is a specific JPL problem or part of a wider American issue (one which I'd blame the education system for). It also kinda inspires me to reinvest in my education if a shortage of available hand and minds limiting our space program.
-
#51
by
edzieba
on 06 Apr, 2023 07:59
-
More a lack of the very specific sort of scientists and engineers needed for the sorts of missions JPL work on. It's a niche within a niche, and not a lucrative one (i.e. there are financial pressures to leave, but not to join). It relies on there being enough potential staff with the passion needed, those staff being in a position to join (e.g. not in a recession where a job that pays enough to support your family is a priority), and having enough excess funding to hire those staff for the years needed to take a passionate but green staffmember and train them up for what is needed to really be productive. It's a very difficult role to 'hire into'.
From the review board's report, lack of funding to hire and retain new staff meant existing staff were stretched thinner and thinner as attrition occurred, and the death-of-a-thousand-cuts combined with a culture of pushing through adversity rather than escalating issues meant that was not treated as an problem until things came to a head with Psyche. A good question would be why JPL specifically were hit harder than, say, Goddard or JHUAPL, or if they just stumbled first and the problem is more endemic. Either way, there isn't a talent pool to draw from in the short term without hiring away from other labs.
-
#52
by
Blackstar
on 06 Apr, 2023 14:07
-
Considering the insufficient personnel between VERITAS and Psyche, as if funding issues weren't enough in past, is it safe to say there's a limited number of researchers/scientists/engineers across America?
It is both general (everywhere) and localized (a bigger problem at some organizations than others). NASA is having problems at other centers too, not just JPL. There are many reasons, including competition with commercial companies that are more attractive to early career engineers and technicians than NASA, and have also poached some important people.
-
#53
by
Don2
on 07 Apr, 2023 04:59
-
I think the cost increase on NEO Surveyor may also have had an impact. NASA was trying to delay it, and there was some political pushback, and now they are going ahead at a higher than expected price of 1.2 to 1.6 Billion $. Something else had to give and it looks like it was VERITAS.
If they are running into trouble with the easy stuff like Psyche and NEO Surveyor, you have to wonder how bad things are going to be on the really hard missions like MSR and Dragonfly. The budget is barely keeping up with inflation. However, the inflation index is for a "typical" basket of goods and services and might not reflect the price increases hitting any particular mission. And having bidding wars over limited resources is a really good way to run up prices.
There is another space synthetic aperture radar mission which has cost and schedule overruns and that is the $1billion+ NISAR mission. That is also based at JPL. The overrun there is probably taking people who would otherwise work on VERITAS.
Pushing VERITAS all the way out to 2031 pushes it out of the way of MSR and creates room for the expected MSR cost overrun. I think the next 18 months will be difficult, with more bad news on costs and schedules being announced. I really hope they can bring VERITAS forward to 2029, but I don't think that having Congress write that date into legislation is a good idea. NASA managers need to the freedom to do their job.
-
#54
by
Blackstar
on 07 Apr, 2023 20:50
-
I think the cost increase on NEO Surveyor may also have had an impact. NASA was trying to delay it, and there was some political pushback, and now they are going ahead at a higher than expected price of 1.2 to 1.6 Billion $. Something else had to give and it looks like it was VERITAS.
Last summer I talked to somebody very knowledgeable about NEO Surveyor who explained the budget stuff. It's convoluted. I don't understand it and it was just weird--a short delay in the program resulted in a big increase in costs. Something weird was going on at HQ with funding that program and we may never really know what it was.
-
#55
by
redliox
on 07 Apr, 2023 23:11
-
Although the VERITAS news isn't delightful, the fact we still have 3 Venusian missions and 2, presumably, still on track I count my blessings. For EnVision and DaVinci, what do their (launch) schedules look like alongside the delayed/tentative launch for VERITAS?
-
#56
by
Don2
on 08 Apr, 2023 08:08
-
Although the VERITAS news isn't delightful, the fact we still have 3 Venusian missions and 2, presumably, still on track I count my blessings. For EnVision and DaVinci, what do their (launch) schedules look like alongside the delayed/tentative launch for VERITAS?
For DAVINCI, KDP-C is in August 2025, launch is November 2029, with probe descent about 2 years later. Life cycle cost is estimated at 1.2-1.6 billion$, similar to NEO Surveyor.
NEO Surveyor has passed KDP-C, and life cycle cost is now $1.622 billion.
Psyche has a life cycle cost of $1.108 billion, including the delay. I'm puzzled as to why the cost of future Discovery class missions has gone up so much. I don't think that can all be inflation.
Envision is planned to launch in November 2031. ESA mission cost is $671 million, but that leaves out a bunch of items. For instance NASA is budgeting over $217 million to build the radar for Envision. I don't think that is included in ESA's mission cost.
-
#57
by
vjkane
on 08 Apr, 2023 09:01
-
Envision is planned to launch in November 2031. ESA mission cost is $671 million, but that leaves out a bunch of items. For instance NASA is budgeting over $217 million to build the radar for Envision. I don't think that is included in ESA's mission cost.
The ESA number doesn't include instruments, which are funded by the contributing space agencies. I also don't think the ESA budget includes the during mission data analysis, which I believe is also funded by the individual space agencies. These can be a substantial hunk of money.
As for rising Discovery costs, there's a number of years between the Psyche and DaVinci launches, and at at least recently inflation has been running high (and may be even higher in aerospace where there's more demand for design and testing skill than people and perhaps facilities).
-
#58
by
Don2
on 09 Apr, 2023 04:31
-
The ESA number doesn't include instruments, which are funded by the contributing space agencies. I also don't think the ESA budget includes the during mission data analysis, which I believe is also funded by the individual space agencies. These can be a substantial hunk of money.
As for rising Discovery costs, there's a number of years between the Psyche and DaVinci launches, and at at least recently inflation has been running high (and may be even higher in aerospace where there's more demand for design and testing skill than people and perhaps facilities).
From 2019 to 2024, costs rose by 20% according to the NASA new starts index. In 2024$, the Lucy mission would cost $1.12bn. Costs for the most recent missions seem to be spiking. I think the new starts index is greatly underestimating the actual rise in mission construction costs right now.
The most likely reason that EnVision seems to be so cheap is that the Europeans are not as good at cost estimation as NASA and their current number is a big underestimate. When I look at their mission I see a more powerful radar that collects more data than VERITAS. I see all the instruments that VERITAS has plus some extra things like a radar sounder. Unless the Europeans are much more efficient at building spacecraft than the US then EnVision has got to cost substantially more than VERITAS.
-
#59
by
Blackstar
on 15 May, 2023 15:04
-
https://www.leonarddavid.com/russias-venus-exploration-plans-evolve/"Russia is pressing forward on creation of a new Venus exploration spacecraft – Venera-D.
A “draft design” for Venera-D is scheduled to begin in January 2024.
Champion spacecraft design leaders, Russia’s NPO Lavochkin Scientific and Production Association, have blueprinted the Venera-D space complex.
Based on Lavochkin results, work schedules, technical specifications and the contracting of co-executing organizations for Venera-D have been formed, as has a Council of Chief Designers."
They have been studying this mission for 20 years. I don't think we can believe anything they claim about it.
-
#60
by
Torten
on 20 May, 2023 15:16
-
I wouldn't be surprised if VERITAS is cancelled and NASA ups their contribution to EnVision instead - frees up money and JPL resources for more important missions and contributing more to EnVision - even if that merely means more transmit time on the DSN might give them a degree of cover for what would be a very unpopular move.
-
#61
by
redliox
on 20 May, 2023 22:53
-
I wouldn't be surprised if VERITAS is cancelled and NASA ups their contribution to EnVision instead - frees up money and JPL resources for more important missions and contributing more to EnVision - even if that merely means more transmit time on the DSN might give them a degree of cover for what would be a very unpopular move.
I'd be disappointed, but merging the 2 missions into a sort-of-flagship does make a lil sense, although I presume you're referring more to a support capacity. Budgets allowing, I'd settle for NASA contributing a launch vehicle, one instrument, and the com support although naturally that's my opinion. 2 out of 3 Venus missions still an improvement over the years without Venusian science.
-
#62
by
vjkane
on 21 May, 2023 00:02
-
I'd be disappointed, but merging the 2 missions into a sort-of-flagship does make a lil sense, although I presume you're referring more to a support capacity. Budgets allowing, I'd settle for NASA contributing a launch vehicle, one instrument, and the com support although naturally that's my opinion. 2 out of 3 Venus missions still an improvement over the years without Venusian science.
EnVision's instrument list is set. Perhaps there could be a tweak or two to an already selected instrument, but no merging of capabilities with VERITAS.
EnVision is limited in its data return and hence the total area to be mapped. Don't know the specific reasons why. Perhaps using the DSN in addition to ESA's antennas could allow more data return and more area mapped. However, other limitations such as onboard data storage or power for transmitting data could be the limiting factor. Lots of trades that are hard to understand without knowing details of the design.
-
#63
by
Don2
on 27 May, 2023 10:08
-
VERITAS and Envision carry very different radars operating at different frequencies. VERITAS is an interferometric SAR, while Envision is a conventional SAR. I don't think there is any way to merge the two instruments.
The only other interferometric SAR I can think of is the Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission which launched late last year. In March this mission released an image of Long Island. Water features stand out particularly well, and some highways also seem to be visible.
Attached image is from this press realease:
https://swot.jpl.nasa.gov/news/99/joint-nasa-cnes-water-tracking-satellite-reveals-first-stunning-views/
-
#64
by
Don2
on 28 May, 2023 00:06
-
This quote from the 2018 Envision assessment study report a good summary of the differences between the missions:
"VERITAS is designed to enable global topographic mapping, so it is naturally complementary to EnVision’s strategy of regional observations using a broad range of synergistic techniques. Whereas VERITAS observations would provide foundational datasets important for comparative planetology, and support science studies requiring global coverage (e.g., obtaining a complete inventory of crater characteristics), EnVision’s multi-messenger geophysics strategy uses combinations of observations at wavelengths from UV to radio-frequency waves to study the coupling of different processes associated with geological activity.
If selected, EnVision would collect targeted high-resolution dual-polarization radar imagery (30 m for up to 30% of surface and 10 m for 2-3% of surface) and generate topographic data via radar stereo techniques (300 m spatial resolution with 30-50 m height accuracy) over these regions."
(VERITAS provides 5m height resolution topography at 250m spacing. It provides a 30m resolution global map, and 15m resolution for 25% of the planet)
I think VERITAS will be very good at finding active areas by comparing their global map with Magellan data. The flexible multi-mode radar on Envision can then follow up on those discoveries. I expect Envision will take considerably better images than VERITAS. There is more to SAR image quality than resolution as the following link explains.
https://www.geospatialworld.net/article/sar-imagery-and-quality-metrics/With a very long extended mission Envision might eventually approach global coverage, but the topographic map will never be as good as VERITAS.
VERITAS will also measure the spin state of Venus, and those measurements can constrain the core size and the core and mantle composition, as the paper linked below explains.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ac26c0It should also be able to detect the recently discovered variations in the rotation rate of Venus.
VERITAS can lay a foundation on which Envision can build. It would be a real shame to lose it.
-
#65
by
vjkane
on 03 Nov, 2023 19:34
-
I don't know if it will have any practical effect, but the just released House FY24 budget language includes this statement:
Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectrometry
mission.—The Committee supports the Discovery Program,
including competitively selected missions such as the Venus
Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectrometry
(VERITAS) mission. The Committee recommends that NASA request
sufficient funding to ensure a launch by the end of the decade.
The Committee directs NASA to provide a budget profile to ensure
the mission can remain on track.
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY24-CJS-Explanatory-Materials.pdf
-
#66
by
VSECOTSPE
on 08 Nov, 2023 12:54
-
VERITAS Warns of Risk of Launch Delay
The head of a delayed NASA mission to Venus has warned that the project risks losing critical expertise if the agency doesn’t find a way to move up the mission…
She said an extended delay, as still planned by NASA, threatened the personnel available for VERITAS, particular for its SAR instrument being developed at JPL. “There’s insufficient radar work at JPL. The radar workforce is really at threat,” she said. “It’s a really big technical threat for us.”
She noted that while NASA has provided some funding for VERITAS to maintain its science team, there was “zero support for engineering development” for the mission. That has led some engineering staff assigned to the mission to seek other work at JPL.
“We are losing our key team members all the time,” she said. “Over the dozen years it took us to get selected we developed a highly experienced, knowledgeable team, and they have to go take other jobs.”
https://spacenews.com/veritas-mission-warns-of-risks-of-launch-delay/
-
#67
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Nov, 2023 13:51
-
I don't know if it will have any practical effect, but the just released House FY24 budget language includes this statement:
Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectrometry
mission.—The Committee supports the Discovery Program,
including competitively selected missions such as the Venus
Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectrometry
(VERITAS) mission. The Committee recommends that NASA request
sufficient funding to ensure a launch by the end of the decade.
The Committee directs NASA to provide a budget profile to ensure
the mission can remain on track.
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY24-CJS-Explanatory-Materials.pdf
What is not clear is that the appropriation committee can get the budget line amount to increase. AIUI geting funding for something in excess of a budget line usually meant something else in the budget line get short charged.
-
#68
by
vjkane
on 11 Mar, 2024 16:22
-
Just released FY25 budget proposal has these proposed changes for DAVINCI and VERITAS:
"This budget supports the VERITAS mission to launch during an available Venus opportunity in
2031-2032. NASA reduced the future Discovery and Planetary SmallSat budgets which will delay the
release of the next Discovery and SIMPLEx AOs to no earlier than FY 2026. This budget also delays the
DAVINCI mission launch from 2029 to an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe."
Page PS-46
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fy-2025-congressional-justification.pdf?emrc=65ef360b75003
-
#69
by
deadman1204
on 11 Mar, 2024 17:11
-
IF Veritas ever does happen, I wonder how it'll work. Isn't most the science team already gone and on other projects? They'll need to rebuild everyone from the ground up.
-
#70
by
Athelstane
on 11 Mar, 2024 17:31
-
IF Veritas ever does happen, I wonder how it'll work. Isn't most the science team already gone and on other projects? They'll need to rebuild everyone from the ground up.
That was my understanding, but any JPL peeps lurking here are certainly welcome to clarify how exactly it stands.
Otherwise, sadly, it strikes me as a kind of zombie program, stalking the halls of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory like the walking dead.
-
#71
by
Don2
on 11 Mar, 2024 18:04
-
IF Veritas ever does happen, I wonder how it'll work. Isn't most the science team already gone and on other projects? They'll need to rebuild everyone from the ground up.
The radar is similar to an Earth science probe called SWOT which launched last year. Also there is a another big JPL radar mission which is just about ready to launch. (NISAR) I think they are worried about losing their radar talent.
~ that will be even more scientifically appealing and similar to the VOX concept you had wrote about in your blog. 
Thanks vjkane!