-
#40
by
Zed_Noir
on 14 Apr, 2023 01:32
-
Can someone explain to me how these Large missions are officially selected as "approved to go"? When did the Clipper mission go from "suggested" to a "real thing"? I'm trying to figure out the timeline on when we might be seeing this mission actually go from a suggestion status to actually happening
The Europa Clipper mission wasn't approved in the nominal way. It was pushed on to NASA by a Congressional patron who kept funding it with an unsolicited budget line for years before his electoral defeat.
-
#41
by
skizzo
on 14 Apr, 2023 04:06
-
Can someone explain to me how these Large missions are officially selected as "approved to go"? When did the Clipper mission go from "suggested" to a "real thing"? I'm trying to figure out the timeline on when we might be seeing this mission actually go from a suggestion status to actually happening
The Europa Clipper mission wasn't approved in the nominal way. It was pushed on to NASA by a Congressional patron who kept funding it with an unsolicited budget line for years before his electoral defeat.
So what is the likely timeline for this mission, when might we be hearing that its getting picked up?
-
#42
by
Don2
on 14 Apr, 2023 08:54
-
So what is the amount of funding needed for the extra data capacity?
I don't think this experiment would generate a large volume of data. I think what deadman1204 meant is that the data would be important. As far as cost, that is hard to say. The deep space optical communication payload on Psyche wasn't too expensive. What is needed for this would be similar, but probably bigger.
@skizzo... The Decadal Survey selected a Uranus orbiter as the next flagship after Mars Sample Return. If the money was available they would start in the next few years for launch in the early 2030s. However, funding is very tight at the minute.
-
#43
by
Don2
on 14 Apr, 2023 08:59
-
Those kinds of cross-division funding opportunities are really rare, and it's hard to make it work. It's hard because the division you want to chip in money may not have anything to spare because it is funding expensive development programs.
It seems like it is easier to collaborate with the Europeans than across NASA divisions.
The dark matter experiment would probably work better on the Interstellar Probe than on the Uranus mission. The key is to get a long ways out from the sun. The farther, the better.
-
#44
by
redliox
on 14 Apr, 2023 11:15
-
The Europa Clipper mission wasn't approved in the nominal way. It was pushed on to NASA by a Congressional patron who kept funding it with an unsolicited budget line for years before his electoral defeat.
The nominal way also led to a lack of new planetary missions during the last quarter of the 20th century. I'd rant more but I'd rather not get banned or detract from the point of this thread (UOP naturally). It took unusual circumstances to spawn and force the development of most of our Outer Planetary missions:
1) New Horizons was effectively saved by public support (despite the IAU's opinion of Pluto).
2) Cassini-Huygens was nearly canceled like its cometary twin, CRAFT, but the connections to ESA and international relations made it riskier to cancel than push forward.
3) Galileo likewise had international ties, but its ties to the shuttle (as much of a bane they became) ensured it and Magellan became the center pieces of what few missions there were in the 1980s and 1990s.
4) The Voyagers' Grand Tour might not have happened if planners didn't settle for Jupiter and Saturn, while sneaking in putting Voyager 2 on a path to Uranus (
heavy relevance to this thread).
Based on history, I would bet phenomenal, rather than nominal, circumstances will be involved with UOP. So far at least it's been nominated to be next post 'Clipper and MSR with ESA showing interest.
-
#45
by
CuddlyRocket
on 14 Apr, 2023 21:16
-
New Horizons was effectively saved by public support (despite the IAU's opinion of Pluto).
New Horizons launched on 19 January 2006. The IAU resolution reclassifying Pluto was on 25 August 2006.
-
#46
by
skizzo
on 14 Apr, 2023 21:38
-
So what are that chances for this mission guys, you believe it'll go through or get cancelled?
-
#47
by
Blackstar
on 14 Apr, 2023 21:43
-
So what are that chances for this mission guys, you believe it'll go through or get cancelled?
I think it will happen eventually. For various definitions of "eventually."
-
#48
by
skizzo
on 14 Apr, 2023 21:45
-
So what are that chances for this mission guys, you believe it'll go through or get cancelled?
I think it will happen eventually. For various definitions of "eventually."
With everything that's going on, I'd be surprised if it launches before 2040
-
#49
by
Blackstar
on 14 Apr, 2023 21:53
-
With everything that's going on, I'd be surprised if it launches before 2040
I think the ideal launch window is 2031, with another possibility in 2032? But I figure a launch sometime in the 2030s.
The community's goal is to keep the spacecraft relatively simple, simpler than Cassini, for instance. That can make it more doable.
The big issue is Mars sample return and how much budget that eats up.
-
#50
by
deadman1204
on 15 Apr, 2023 01:27
-
So what are that chances for this mission guys, you believe it'll go through or get cancelled?
The mission may get delayed alot, but its really high in the decadal survey's list. That list tends to remain each decadal review. They just tick the items off the top that are done/in progress and add more to the bottom.
Barring something crazy, I'd expect a Uranus thing to be at/near the top of the 2030 planetary decadal if it isn't in progress yet.
-
#51
by
redliox
on 15 Apr, 2023 01:44
-
I'd give it a decent chance to happen especially if ESA (maybe JAXA) partners up. Question would be can anyone other than JPL manage it? JPL has the talent, ego, and experience, but clearly the staff is stretched thin. APL comes to mind, but JPL almost always was the default probe center for NASA.
Management aside, a plus will be that, even if it happens in the 2040s, a big variety of launchers is emerging now: Vulcan, Starship, Ariane 6, SLS, maybe New Glenn. Wind back ~15 years and you only had 2 'flavors': Delta 4 and Atlas V; more if you counted international options (the Russian varieties no longer an option).
-
#52
by
Zed_Noir
on 15 Apr, 2023 03:19
-
I'd give it a decent chance to happen especially if ESA (maybe JAXA) partners up. Question would be can anyone other than JPL manage it? JPL has the talent, ego, and experience, but clearly the staff is stretched thin. APL comes to mind, but JPL almost always was the default probe center for NASA.
Management aside, a plus will be that, even if it happens in the 2040s, a big variety of launchers is emerging now: Vulcan, Starship, Ariane 6, SLS, maybe New Glenn. Wind back ~15 years and you only had 2 'flavors': Delta 4 and Atlas V; more if you counted international options (the Russian varieties no longer an option).
Ahem. There was only one "flavor" beyond Jupiter in the form of the Atlas V. Since it was the only launcher certified to carry RTGs.
Hopefully we will get more than one launcher that is certified to carry RTGs or fission reactors after 2030. Which likely not included the current iteration of the Starship, Ariane 6, H3, Vulcan Centaur, New Glenn or SLS. Expected all the previous listed launchers by 2040 will be retired and replaced with something else or nothing.
Maybe there will be a third choice for building NASA space probes in the future besides JPL and APL.
As for a mission to Uranus getting approval. Chances are good for it to happen, however it will likely be different from the current mission concept as new technologies emerges and new space vehicles comes online.
-
#53
by
Don2
on 15 Apr, 2023 06:34
-
Can someone explain to me how these Large missions are officially selected as "approved to go"? When did the Clipper mission go from "suggested" to a "real thing"? I'm trying to figure out the timeline on when we might be seeing this mission actually go from a suggestion status to actually happening
The first step is to build support for the concept in the science community and do a concept study for a Decadal Survey. I think I started to read about a Uranus mission in 2010. In 2011 a study was published and was submitted to 2012 Decadal Survey. That survey endorsed the idea and ranked it as their third priority behind Mars Sample Return and a Europa Probe.
They did another couple of studies before the 2022 Decadal Survey. At that time NASA had committed to Europa Clipper and was moving ahead with Mars Sample Return, so an Ice Giant mission was next in the queue. The 2022 Decadal ranked Uranus Orbiter as their top priority for a new start. Their second priority was an Enceladus orbiter, which will probably follow Uranus.
The next step will be to approve for Formulation, where they will develop any necessary technology and put together a design. This is the phase that Mars Sample Return and Dragonfly are in at the minute. This phase ends with a preliminary design review and a reliable cost estimate which leads up to Key decision point C (KDP-C). At that point the project is approved for implementation. Then they start building components. At KDP-D they approve assembly of the spacecraft. That is where Europa Clipper is now. When the spacecraft has been built and tested they then approve for launch which is KDP-E.
The whole process takes several decades. The 2002 Decadal Survey ranked a Europa mission as the top planetary science priority. In 2012 it was ranked second behind Mars Sample Return because the Europa mission design looked to be too expensive. They found a way to cut the costs and rebranded the mission as Europa Clipper. Representative John Culbertson of Texas strongly supported it and provided some additional funding to get it started. Formulation for Clipper started in 2015 and they passed KDP-C in 2019.
https://www.nasa.gov/seh/3-project-life-cycle
-
#54
by
Don2
on 15 Apr, 2023 08:35
-
I think there is another advantage to improving the accuracy of Uranus orbiter ranging over Cassini apart from dark matter studies. When the Planet 9 hypothesis was proposed, one of the ways it was investigated was by looking for deviations in the orbit of Saturn in the Cassini ranging data.
Uranus is farther out, so it should be more sensitive to orbital disturbance from Planet 9. With an improvement in ranging accuracy, it might be possible to prove or disprove the Planet 9 hypothesis.
This paper states: "The Cassini data provides an exceptional set of measures that acts as a very sensitive device for testing the possibility of an additional massive body in the solar system. "
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/03/aa28227-16/aa28227-16.html
-
#55
by
Blackstar
on 15 Apr, 2023 18:03
-
The whole process takes several decades. The 2002 Decadal Survey ranked a Europa mission as the top planetary science priority. In 2012 it was ranked second behind Mars Sample Return because the Europa mission design looked to be too expensive.
I was involved in the previous two decadal surveys (and the previous two decadal survey midterms). The one thing I would caution against is assuming that these rankings are inevitable and that just because something was third on the previous list it will rise to second (or first) the next time they have a decadal survey. That is probably going to happen, but it's not guaranteed. New discoveries and new technologies can introduce changes to the scientific priorities.
That said, there is political value to consistency--when NASA goes to the politicians and asks for money, their argument is stronger if they can say that the science community has supported doing something for a long time.
-
#56
by
skizzo
on 15 Apr, 2023 19:40
-
I believe the Europa lander was bumped down, was it not?
-
#57
by
Blackstar
on 16 Apr, 2023 00:05
-
The nominal way also led to a lack of new planetary missions during the last quarter of the 20th century.
Last quarter of the 20th century was 1975-2000. During that quarter we had two Viking missions, two Voyager missions, Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, Galileo, Magellan, Mars Observer, Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Mars Pathfinder, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, and Cassini. Even subtracting the missions that were started before 1975, that leaves quite a few missions. There are a bunch of other problems with your post that aren't worth going into.
-
#58
by
Blackstar
on 16 Apr, 2023 00:07
-
I believe the Europa lander was bumped down, was it not?
The Europa Lander was never prioritized in the decadal survey. If you look in the 2011 decadal survey, you will find barely any mention of it. The community considered it to be premature to even be evaluated at that time. It was carefully evaluated in the 2022 decadal survey, and not given a high priority ranking. But they discussed the heck out of it.
-
#59
by
Blackstar
on 16 Apr, 2023 00:18
-
The Europa Clipper mission wasn't approved in the nominal way. It was pushed on to NASA by a Congressional patron who kept funding it with an unsolicited budget line for years before his electoral defeat.
What is this "nominal way" of which you speak?
A Europa mission was prioritized in the 2011 decadal survey. The problem was that the mission concept that was presented to the decadal survey was too expensive to pursue given the budget that was projected to be available at the time. I was there in the room as the planetary decadal survey steering committee discussed the mission and it just blew the top off of all the budget sand charts for the decade. So the committee could not put it at the top of the list. But they did believe it was an important mission, so they told NASA to go back to the drawing board and find a way to make the mission more affordable. That took JPL several years, at which point they came up with Europa Clipper.
By 2015 or so, powerful congressman Culbertson was pushing money into NASA's budget to fund that mission. But he probably would not have been successful without the mission having appeared in the top of the decadal survey.
And you know what? That's a "nominal" way for expensive missions to get approved. A high priority endorsement from the scientific community is necessary but not sufficient to get a mission approved. A champion, in the form of a powerful member or members of Congress is also necessary--but not necessarily sufficient--for a mission to get funded. Those things go hand in hand. (Note that Culbertson also pushed the Europa Lander, which was NOT in the decadal survey, and is NOT getting built.)
If you look at other expensive missions from the past, like JWST and even the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, you will find many similarities. JWST had Senator Barbara Mikulski pushing it, for example.
That is how the system works.