-
New Frontiers 5
by
vjkane
on 01 Sep, 2022 22:02
-
Couldn't find a previous topic on this.
Here is a community announcement just put out by NASA. Total mission PI costs of $1.2B, earliest launch in 2031.
Estimated Release of draft AO …...November 2022 (target)
Estimated Release of final AO ……November 2023 (target)
Estimated Proposal due date ……..March 2024 (target)
This community announcement is the fifth in a series to provide an advance notice of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plan to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit New Frontiers Program mission investigations. The New Frontiers Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD’s planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap for the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC). The target release date for the final AO is Fall 2023. This NF5 announcement shares some policies under consideration for the AO and invites public comment to NASA.
The policies described in this announcement are not final. Public feedback to this announcement will be considered by NASA as part of the ongoing AO preparation process to revise these and other policies. SMD’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) estimates the policies in this announcement may have the most significant impact on proposers’ responses to the AO.
The draft policies offered for public comment are the following:
Mission Themes: Mission investigations will be limited to the following mission themes (listed without priority), with the science objectives specified in either the Decadal Survey [solarsystem.nasa.gov] or the previously issued New Frontiers 4 AO [nspires.nasaprs.com]:
· Comet Surface Sample Return
· Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
· Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
· Saturn Probe
· Io Observer
· Lunar Geophysical Network
Cost Cap: PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC) for investigations will have two cost caps. The PMMC for Phases A-D will be capped at $900M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The PMMC for Phase E will be capped at $300M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The now-standard 25% minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within the PMMC. Development of flight or ground software, ground hardware, or testbed development or refurbishment that occurs after launch will be considered deferred Phase C/D work and their costs will be included under the PMMC cost cap for Phases A-D. Only costs related to spacecraft and science operations will be considered part of the Phase E PMMC cost cap. Lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged.
Step 2 Selections: NASA intends to select up to three proposals to proceed to Step 2 to conduct a mission concept study followed by downselection of up to one mission investigation to proceed into development. NASA will provide $5M (Real Year$) to each selectee(s) for this mission concept study.
Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Tech Incentives: NASA currently does not plan to offer an incentive to infuse particular NASA-developed technologies under the New Frontiers 5 AO. NASA will revisit the availability, utility, and readiness of technologies prior to the release of the final AO.
Launch Readiness Date: Mission investigations must be ready to launch no earlier than Fall 2031 and no later than Fall 2034.
Launch Vehicle: Launch Vehicle costs and procurement will be the responsibility of NASA. NASA intends to offer all launch vehicle performance capabilities (defined in previous AOs from Low through High) as GFE. Its cost will not be included in the PMMC. The cost of mission specific and special launch services (i.e., larger fairing or the flight of nuclear materials) will be included within the PMMC. Details of these specialized costs are still under discussion.
Non-U.S. Contributions: The value of non-U.S. contributions remains constrained as was done for recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs. The total value of non-U.S. contributions may not exceed one-third of the PMMC for phases A-D, and the value of non-U.S. contributions to the science payload may not exceed one-third of the total payload cost.
In addition, NASA and ESA are working to formalize a partnership for the New Frontiers 5 AO that would make available an ESA contribution to proposers. The contribution can include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility. Scientific instruments are explicitly not included as an option under this potential partnership.
Nuclear Power Sources: Mission investigations may utilize radioisotope power systems (RPS) provided by NASA. Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs) also are available for use as localized heat sources. For electrical power, up to one Next Generation Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) will be offered by NASA. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) are not planned to be offered under the New Frontiers 5 AO. The cost for the Next Generation RTG and/or RHUs and associated specialized launch services will be included within the PMMC. Information on these costs and the performance characteristics of the Next Generation RTG and RHUs will be made available at a later date.
Additional Opportunities: As has been done for the two most recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs, requests for including Student Collaborations, Science Enhancement Options, and Technology Demonstrations are deferred to the Step-2 mission concept study. Though deferred, information on these opportunities will be provided no later than the AO release date.
NASA has not approved the issuance of the New Frontiers AO and this notification does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in response to this notification or the planned Draft and Final New Frontiers 5 AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk
Further information will be posted on the New Frontiers Program Acquisition Page at
https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/ [newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov] as it becomes available. Questions and feedback on the draft policies in this notice are due by October 31, 2022. The draft AO expected to be released in November 2022 presents an additional opportunity to comment on the draft policies in this notice. Questions and feedback may be emailed to Dr. Curt Niebur, the New Frontiers Program Lead Scientist, via
[email protected].
-
#1
by
Phil Stooke
on 01 Sep, 2022 23:56
-
It will be interesting to see what happens with the SPA basin sample return. If chosen it could sample materials not targeted by Endurance A (and Carle Pieters and Jim Head have been promoting specific targets), or it could be dropped altogether because Endurance A replaces it. Another option might be that this is how Endurance A gets funded, The NF-5 mission becomes Endurance A.
-
#2
by
vjkane
on 03 Sep, 2022 01:22
-
It will be interesting to see what happens with the SPA basin sample return. If chosen it could sample materials not targeted by Endurance A (and Carle Pieters and Jim Head have been promoting specific targets), or it could be dropped altogether because Endurance A replaces it. Another option might be that this is how Endurance A gets funded, The NF-5 mission becomes Endurance A.
I suspect that the Endurance-A/R concepts effectively make the single site SPA sample return concept obsolete. The argument made by the Decadal is that the key questions about SPA cannot be answered from a single site.
My personal handicapping of the candidate missions:
Front Runners
Enceladus multiflyby - Enceladus was clearly prioritized as a target by the last Decadal, and its importance emphasized by the report stating that its prioritization as a NF and flagship mission. In addition, considerable work has been done to mature instrument designs.
Lunar geophysical network - The community promoting this concept has done a lot of work to mature the design concepts and to create a strong science rational.
Next tier
Comet sample return - comets are a high priority and the last NF selection produced a strong mission concept. Two other concepts were also proposed in the last competition.
Next tier
Saturn probe
Io observer
Both have strong science rationals and mature (especially for Io) mission concepts. However, neither target seemed to be prioritized as the targets above were in the Decadal report.
Having said this, the actual mission proposals and their strengths and weaknesses (not revealed to the public) play a strong role. I personally expect strong proposals for all concepts (except possibly the SPA sample return, which may not be proposed, see note above). If there are roughly equally strong proposals, then prioritization of targets in the Decadal report may sway the selection
-
#3
by
vjkane
on 03 Sep, 2022 21:56
-
Mission Themes: Mission investigations will be limited to the following mission themes (listed without priority), with the science objectives specified in either the Decadal Survey [solarsystem.nasa.gov] or the previously issued New Frontiers 4 AO [nspires.nasaprs.com]:
· Comet Surface Sample Return
· Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
· Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
· Saturn Probe
· Io Observer
· Lunar Geophysical Network
Just realized that the Venus in situ concept (combined atmospheric probe and surface analysis) was not included in this list despite being on the list for NF5 from the previous 2012 Decadal (which provides the list for this competition).
I expect that this is due to ensuring a diversity of solar system exploration after the selection of three Venus missions, overlap with the DAVINCI mission specifically, and publicly stated concerns over whether the surface sampling required under the prior requirements could be done within the NF cost constraints.
The Venus mission was included in a list of expected NF5 candidates in a November 2020 community announcement, before the competition was delayed. (The list above comes from the just released community announcement.)
-
#4
by
redliox
on 04 Sep, 2022 06:15
-
What information is there on the 2 Lunar missions? I'm particularly curious about the network.
-
#5
by
Blackstar
on 04 Sep, 2022 13:11
-
I suspect that the Endurance-A/R concepts effectively make the single site SPA sample return concept obsolete. The argument made by the Decadal is that the key questions about SPA cannot be answered from a single site.
vjkane is right about that. It was a bit of a dilemma for the decadal survey. Essentially it was this: "We [the scientists on the decadal survey--including the 2011 decadal survey] think/thought that the SPAB sample return concept was scientifically compelling. But it has now lost New Frontiers concepts multiple times. Did it lose because the mission proposals had implementation flaws? Or did it lose because other people doing the evaluating did not think that it was scientifically compelling?"
They didn't want to propose again and lose again. So they decided that they needed to take another approach.
This was complicated by the knowledge that as the DS was considering this issue, people were preparing another SPAB sample return proposal. Because NF5 kept getting kicked down the road and delayed, it created a really awkward situation where the DS did not want to derail a current proposal, which involved a lot of people and effort. But there was nothing they could really do about that. But that was certainly one of the more awkward conundrums faced by the people working on the DS.
-
#6
by
libra
on 04 Sep, 2022 14:23
-
Truly one of the most jinxed proposal ever.
-
#7
by
vjkane
on 08 Sep, 2022 23:33
-
This announcement was recently posted on the VEXAG site
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/resources/nf5/Special Notice regarding the Fifth NF5 Community Announcement
On Sept, 7, 2022, NASA released its fifth Community Announcement Advanced Notice regarding the Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (Link here:
https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/)
In the announcement, the “Venus In Situ Explorer” (“VISE”) theme was omitted from the list of allowed Mission Themes.
VEXAG has requested from the NF5 program office clarification of, and rationale for, this change.
The 12 May 2021 NASA Community Announcement on NF5 indicated that the results of the Decadal Survey would guide the NF5 solicitation, and the Decadal Committee responded on 25 May 2021 that it would retain the existing New Frontiers mission theme list [OWL, p22-30].
As the Venus Assessment Group, we are seeking the thoughts and inputs of the Venus science and technology communities regarding this decision by NASA, so that we may accurately represent your views to the upcoming CAPS meeting in late September, and to NASA as they gather feedback for the NF5 Draft AO, due out in November.
A Google form that can be filled out anonymously is available here: (
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDl_4U_3vsi5RYTcMQnK4w684bUKxNbXNSIRc0c2g_tMwMrA/viewform). We hope to compile feedback and discuss by Friday September 23, 2022 ahead of the CAPS meeting. We’ll accept later responses, but can’t guarantee we’ll be able to consider them before CAPS.
NASA wishes to have feedback on the Community Announcement by October 31, 2022.
Sincerely,
Noam Izenberg, Chair, OBO the VEXAG Steering Committee
-
#8
by
vjkane
on 10 Sep, 2022 22:42
-
Leonard David's latest article states that China has decided to use the Chang'e 6 mission to return samples from the far side of the moon. From previous information when there were at least two regions in contention, China had stated that the far side mission would target the SPA if memory serves me correctly.
This would seem to make a mission being selected by NASA for the NF5 competition for an SPA sample return less likely. The samples from Chang'e 6 likely will have been on Earth for several years before an NF5 mission could launch.
-
#9
by
Blackstar
on 11 Sep, 2022 02:12
-
On Sept, 7, 2022, NASA released its fifth Community Announcement Advanced Notice regarding the Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (Link here: https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/)
In the announcement, the “Venus In Situ Explorer” (“VISE”) theme was omitted from the list of allowed Mission Themes.
VEXAG has requested from the NF5 program office clarification of, and rationale for, this change.
I'm not that surprised that it is not on the list. With three Venus missions in development, it's not clear how much confidence anyone can have in the science that a VISE mission would accomplish. Even if NASA put it on the list, I think there would be a bias against it by any reviewers or selecting officials. They'd all say "Why don't we wait for the other missions?"
-
#10
by
Todd Martin
on 11 Sep, 2022 03:11
-
What information is there on the 2 Lunar missions? I'm particularly curious about the network.
This is what I found on the lunar network:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/studies/203/lunar-geophysical-network-lgn/ Reading through this proposal, brings to mind a few thoughts/lay opinions:
1) ASRG power is selected in the proposal to power 4 landers. Using plutonium for a lunar mission is unnecessary, adds cost, risk, delays, and limits the launch vehicle selection. IMHO, ASRG should be saved for outer planets missions. I would recommend solar + batteries.
2) Lunar science missions should collaborate with Artemis. Rideshare if possible. Design the landers to be serviceable in the field (a.k.a. Hubble, not JWST).
3) The system should allow for future additional landers to be included beyond the proposed 4.
-
#11
by
vjkane
on 11 Sep, 2022 05:22
-
-
#12
by
Todd Martin
on 11 Sep, 2022 20:37
-
What information is there on the 2 Lunar missions? I'm particularly curious about the network.
The document listed is over a decade old and prepared for the 2012 Decadal Survey. The concept described for the 2022 Decadal Survey is solar+battery powered:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Lunar%20Geophysical%20Network.pdf
Thank you Vjkane, much appreciated. The new proposal is much improved with not only solar+batteries baselined, but mention of additional landers being welcome as well as possible coordination with Gateway, Artemis and international contributors. I was impressed with the concepts on thermal management where the landers retain heat from the day to keep the system warm through the long night
. The main concern being given within the proposal is the weight constraints imposed by trying to fit 4 landers with heavy batteries and an orbiter being too much for a Falcon Heavy to deliver through TLI.
A couple of ideas which were not included but may be helpful include:
* Add a kickstage such as a Star 48 to improve TLI performance numbers so as to allow all 4 landers + orbiter to launch on 1 Falcon Heavy. The Europa Clipper mission is going to use a Star 48 with a Falcon Heavy, so the thought isn't completely crazy.
* Place one of the landers in a place that gets more sunlight so that less battery mass is needed. Here is a link to Paul Spudis's article on such places:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/ I wonder what ruled out one of these locations.
-
#13
by
Timber Micka
on 11 Sep, 2022 21:41
-
I'm rooting for the Comet Surface Sample Return proposal. They could reuse a lot of things from OSIRIS-REx + ESA would be an ideal partner for the mission with all the knowledge they got from Rosetta.
An Enceladus probe sounds neat but, sadly, expensive by comparison, even without an RTG included.
The Lunar Geophysical Network is the safest/most accessible proposal IMO, if they can get the instruments to piggyback on the CLIPS landers that should save them a lot of money.
-
#14
by
Blackstar
on 11 Sep, 2022 21:46
-
I'm rooting for the Comet Surface Sample Return proposal. They could reuse a lot of things from OSIRIS-REx + ESA would be an ideal partner for the mission with all the knowledge they got from Rosetta.
An Enceladus probe sounds neat but, sadly, expensive by comparison, even without an RTG included.
The Lunar Geophysical Network is the safest/most accessible proposal IMO, if they can get the instruments to piggyback on the CLIPS landers that should save them a lot of money.
The last comet mission was ruled competitive, so simply re-doing that one should also be competitive.
CLPS won't "save a lot of money" because a) we don't know if CLPS spacecraft would meet the reliability requirements, and b) CLPS right now does not include spacecraft that can survive the lunar night. That capability would have to be added.
-
#15
by
Timber Micka
on 11 Sep, 2022 21:56
-
I'm rooting for the Comet Surface Sample Return proposal. They could reuse a lot of things from OSIRIS-REx + ESA would be an ideal partner for the mission with all the knowledge they got from Rosetta.
An Enceladus probe sounds neat but, sadly, expensive by comparison, even without an RTG included.
The Lunar Geophysical Network is the safest/most accessible proposal IMO, if they can get the instruments to piggyback on the CLIPS landers that should save them a lot of money.
The last comet mission was ruled competitive, so simply re-doing that one should also be competitive.
CLPS won't "save a lot of money" because a) we don't know if CLPS spacecraft would meet the reliability requirements, and b) CLPS right now does not include spacecraft that can survive the lunar night. That capability would have to be added.
Surely not "right now" but it doesn't seem absurd to order an upgrade of future landers to have permanent coverage. I don't see how it would be more expensive than building a fleet of dedicated landers from scratch, which seems a bit overkill to me.
-
#16
by
vjkane
on 11 Sep, 2022 22:54
-
I'm rooting for the Comet Surface Sample Return proposal. They could reuse a lot of things from OSIRIS-REx + ESA would be an ideal partner for the mission with all the knowledge they got from Rosetta.
I wrote an article on the finalists for the last New Frontiers competition, which were Dragonfly (selected) and a comet sample return mission led by Steven Squyres. In a prepublication draft I shared with Squyres for an accuracy check, I said that their proposed spacecraft and the OSIRIS-REx were similar. Squyres very specifically said they are not similar - so apparently not much heritage despite superficial similarities (such as touch and retreat sampling using a collector on a long boom. But as Blackstar said in another reply, the proposal was judged competitive.
I believe that Squyres is now retired, but another team member might lead a reproposal or one that draws from the previous proposal.
-
#17
by
ccdengr
on 11 Sep, 2022 23:01
-
so apparently not much heritage despite superficial similarities
Different propulsion and a different spacecraft vendor, so expecting heritage to OREx is not valid, certainly.
https://caesar.cornell.edu/team/
-
#18
by
vjkane
on 11 Sep, 2022 23:13
-
so apparently not much heritage despite superficial similarities
Different propulsion and a different spacecraft vendor, so expecting heritage to OREx is not valid, certainly. https://caesar.cornell.edu/team/
The obvious high level similarities being a case of convergent evolution, err design. :>)
-
#19
by
Blackstar
on 11 Sep, 2022 23:35
-
I don't see how it would be more expensive than building a fleet of dedicated landers from scratch, which seems a bit overkill to me.
We can argue theoreticals all we want and there's no point to it. I would just point out that it is not at all clear that CLPS landers designed to their own specifications (and without being able to survive the lunar night) are inherently the right/best/cheapest choice for a mission that has its own requirements.
-
#20
by
Blackstar
on 11 Sep, 2022 23:39
-
Squyres very specifically said they are not similar - so apparently not much heritage despite superficial similarities (such as touch and retreat sampling using a collector on a long boom. But as Blackstar said in another reply, the proposal was judged competitive.
I believe that Squyres is now retired, but another team member might lead a reproposal or one that draws from the previous proposal.
Different sampling mechanism is a big deal. However, Squyres' proposal would have used a Japanese reentry vehicle similar to that proven for Hayabusa. Also, Squyres is with Blue Origin, but I haven't heard anything about what he does there. There are other people at Cornell--where he used to be--who could pick up the original proposal.
I'm very wary of the term "heritage equipment." Lots of people claim it in proposals, but they often discover that when it is time to build the spacecraft, they cannot use an identical version of equipment flown on another spacecraft. That can happen for lots of reasons, including a different environment, requirements creep, or even changing vendors (like the original manufacturer no longer exists).
-
#21
by
tbellman
on 12 Sep, 2022 09:38
-
* Add a kickstage such as a Star 48 to improve TLI performance numbers so as to allow all 4 landers + orbiter to launch on 1 Falcon Heavy. The Europa Clipper mission is going to use a Star 48 with a Falcon Heavy, so the thought isn't completely crazy.
(My bolding.)
No, it is not. That alternative was discarded quite some time ago. Europa Clipper will not use a kick stage, just a "plain" Falcon Heavy.
-
#22
by
skizzo
on 12 Sep, 2022 10:11
-
Since its unlike the Enceladus probe and lander flagship mission is unlikely to happen, hopefully the Enceladus NF mission goes ahead
-
#23
by
Blackstar
on 19 Sep, 2022 13:32
-
A topic that has come up a few times with regards to NF 5, the South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return mission, the lunar geophysical network mission, and CLPS, is getting lunar landers to survive the lunar night. This is not an impossible technical problem. After all, the Soviets did it with Lunokhod. The real issue is doing it relatively inexpensively and at low mass. Inexpensively almost certainly means doing it without a radioactive heating source. The mass issue is a tougher one. Presumably, you could pack a lander with batteries and run a low level heater during the nighttime. But that would be heavy and wasteful. Also, you really want to be able to operate at least some instruments during the nighttime--having a seismic sensor that only works during the day is not ideal.
The CLPS companies know about all this, and presumably they have ideas about how to address it. However, they are also all focused on getting their first lander to work, so they probably are not devoting many resources to solving problems farther down the road. (Many of these companies don't have much in the way of personnel or other resources, so they have to say very focused on the near-term.)
The NASA science community has sponsored a series of workshops on the subject of surviving the lunar night. There is one in December.
-
#24
by
MRJC
on 23 Sep, 2022 16:27
-
-
#25
by
MRJC
on 23 Sep, 2022 17:31
-
-
#26
by
MRJC
on 17 Oct, 2022 10:52
-
-
#27
by
vjkane
on 17 Oct, 2022 15:19
-
-
#28
by
deadman1204
on 17 Oct, 2022 15:26
-
-
#29
by
redliox
on 17 Oct, 2022 23:26
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the Neptune Surveyor fly, although I favored a flyby with probe versus just an orbiter. I don't know if whatever committee that drives NF will change it's mind, plus I'd hate to write off the potential for either some Farside Lunar missions or maybe the Venus balloon ideas.
-
#30
by
vjkane
on 17 Oct, 2022 23:42
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the Neptune Surveyor fly, although I favored a flyby with probe versus just an orbiter. I don't know if whatever committee that drives NF will change it's mind, plus I'd hate to write off the potential for either some Farside Lunar missions or maybe the Venus balloon ideas.
Only a flyby to Neptune could be afforded on a New Frontiers budget.
-
#31
by
Blackstar
on 18 Oct, 2022 00:46
-
It mentions that its powered by "next-gen RTGs". Do these exist yet, or are they still in development?
There is a lot of wishful thinking behind this push. And chutzpah. And wishful thinking.
Take for instance this text:
"To be clear, we are not advocating for revision of the New Frontiers 5 target list via a lengthy consultation with the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences, as associated delays would be to the detriment of the community and ultimately self-defeating."
CAPS is specifically tasked with interpreting the decadal survey. So what they are saying is that they don't want the organization that is supposed to review these kinds of things review this one.
Update: I'm trying to think of an analogy to what they are asking for and I can't really come up with a good one. But think of it like somebody who gets arrested for drunken driving and then asking that instead of having to appear in court, they be allowed to have their mother decide on their punishment. That's not how things work.
And that's only one problem with what is wrong here. There are procedures that have been established to determine how NASA selects planetary missions. CAPS is just part of that, but the decadal survey is a bigger part. And these people are essentially saying that because they don't like the outcome of the process, they want special consideration. Well, so does the Venus community, and the Mars community, and the asteroids community, and the giant planets community. It's just that those communities play by the rules and the ocean worlds community is a bunch of whiny babies that doesn't like the rules.
-
#32
by
vjkane
on 05 Nov, 2022 07:51
-
There is, I think, an interesting implication to the evaluation of the problems with the Psyche mission and JPL (see other threads for background) on the next NF competition.
JPL may not have the bandwidth to take on another mission before around 2030. NASA has basically instructed JPL to phase development on the planetary missions in its portfolio: complete Psyche (launch 2023), complete MSR (target launch 2028), complete VERITAS (launch no earlier than 2031). The message in the evaluation report is that JPL has too much on its plate, and the only solution was to move the bulk of the VERITAS development to after the planned MSR launch date.
This may mean that JPL effectively cannot propose a mission for the NF5 competition. The evaluation of any proposal includes the capacity to implement the proposed mission.
I would normally expect JPL to propose at least one and probably two missions for an NF competition. If JPL effectively can't propose missions, then we may have a much smaller field of proposals. Certainly John Hopkins APL will propose as may other NASA centers.
-
#33
by
Kesarion
on 05 Nov, 2022 11:58
-
This may mean that JPL effectively cannot propose a mission for the NF5 competition. The evaluation of any proposal includes the capacity to implement the proposed mission.
I would normally expect JPL to propose at least one and probably two missions for an NF competition. If JPL effectively can't propose missions, then we may have a much smaller field of proposals. Certainly John Hopkins APL will propose as may other NASA centers.
So this means that MoonRise (Aitken basin sample return), SPRITE (Saturn probe) and ELF (Enceladus flybys mission) are unlikely to be proposed or selected. This increases the chance that the Io Observer will be picked which the mission I'm personally rooting for.
-
#34
by
Zed_Noir
on 05 Nov, 2022 14:12
-
This may mean that JPL effectively cannot propose a mission for the NF5 competition. The evaluation of any proposal includes the capacity to implement the proposed mission.
I would normally expect JPL to propose at least one and probably two missions for an NF competition. If JPL effectively can't propose missions, then we may have a much smaller field of proposals. Certainly John Hopkins APL will propose as may other NASA centers.
So this means that MoonRise (Aitken basin sample return), SPRITE (Saturn probe) and ELF (Enceladus flybys mission) are unlikely to be proposed or selected. This increases the chance that the Io Observer will be picked which the mission I'm personally rooting for.
Think Lunar missions is a bit more likely than the outer system and comet missions for NF5. Since there might resources available to be tapped from the Artemis and CLPS programs that isn't JPL or APL.
-
#35
by
Blackstar
on 05 Nov, 2022 15:46
-
Think Lunar missions is a bit more likely than the outer system and comet missions for NF5. Since there might resources available to be tapped from the Artemis and CLPS programs that isn't JPL or APL.
In order to propose a mission, you really need an institutional sponsor that will pay the money to put together the proposal. (My guess is that it's a few million dollars.) And you need to be able to demonstrate that you can actually carry out that mission with confidence. So you need to point to an experienced team and hardware manufacturers and so on.
JPL in the past funded teams for each of the NF candidates. So if there were 5 candidate missions, they funded 5 teams. I don't know about APL, but they have less walking around money to fund these things--my WAG is that APL funded half as many as JPL.
As for Artemis and CLPS, I don't think they're going to be relevant. They have not really built or proven anything yet. And the CLPS teams for the most part are inexperienced and resource-thin. They are very focused on getting their first landers off the ground, and I doubt that they can loan any of their engineers to work on NF proposals. They just don't have them to spare.
Keep in mind that JPL is an 800-pound gorilla. They have a lot of money and a lot of people and a lot of experience. They also have an institution that wants to take on these things and wants to win. Their problem now is that they have too much on their plate. That's actually been a problem with them for a number of years. Before the pandemic I visited there and my friend noted that she was shocked that we found a parking space, because quite often the parking lots (not that big, actually) were filled early, and people had to park down the street and walk up. They were flooded with work and people and it was straining their capabilities. Obviously it has now bitten them in the butt.
In contrast, other potential NF sponsors don't have the same assets that JPL does. Lockheed Martin will fund some proposals, because LM has a culture that wants to win. They don't make much profit on planetary missions, but they value them for other reasons. I know somebody who worked at Boeing and he tried for several years to get Boeing into bidding on planetary missions and they just didn't care. They couldn't see the point of trying to win one of the competitions. That's why you don't see Boeing spacecraft landing on Mars or the Moon, or really flying anywhere beyond LEO.
-
#36
by
Don2
on 06 Nov, 2022 17:52
-
Given the shortage of resources, I wonder if they should delay the NF5 competition. I'm a little concerned that Mars Sample Return and Dragonfly are the two most ambitious planetary science missions ever attempted and that resources could run out if they run into trouble. There is also Europa Clipper, another big mission. And Psyche, Veritas, Davinci and NEO Surveyor. There is also the Roman telescope and all the Earth science missions.
If the competition goes ahead I expect a comet sample return mission based on the CAESAR proposal will run again. The previous proposal was managed by Goddard and built by Northrop Grumman. It was the runner up in the last competition, so I expect it will be a strong competitor.
The Japanese Hayabusa mission returned material that was the product of a low temperature hydrothermal system. It was similar to the Orgueil meteorite, which is among the most primitive solar system materials ever studied. The precursor to those materials is thought to be the icy materials found in comets. None of that icy material has ever been collected and studied. It is hoped that that material would give insights into the early solar system and perhaps the conditions around dying stars that made the materials for the protoplanetary disk. Scientists have wanted a sample of that for decades. Rosetta was originally proposed to be a sample return mission. Then they went for a well instrumented lander that would study the material in-situ. Then the lander failed, so the science remains undone.
The science case for a comet sample return mission is strong, if the resources are there to do it.
-
#37
by
vjkane
on 06 Nov, 2022 22:50
-
Given the shortage of resources, I wonder if they should delay the NF5 competition. I'm a little concerned that Mars Sample Return and Dragonfly are the two most ambitious planetary science missions ever attempted and that resources could run out if they run into trouble. There is also Europa Clipper, another big mission. And Psyche, Veritas, Davinci and NEO Surveyor. There is also the Roman telescope and all the Earth science missions.
If the competition goes ahead I expect a comet sample return mission based on the CAESAR proposal will run again. The previous proposal was managed by Goddard and built by Northrop Grumman. It was the runner up in the last competition, so I expect it will be a strong competitor.
The science case for a comet sample return mission is strong, if the resources are there to do it.
Don2 - I think that the answer to whether or not NASA will delay NF5 depends on their announced assessments of whether Goddard and John Hopkins APL are suffering the same problems. If not, that plus possible teaming with industrial partners may provide sufficient capacity for a real competition.
The comet sample return is a good mission concept (and at least three variants of it were proposed the last time with one becoming a finalist). As a betting man (who is often wrong!) my money is on that or the Enceladus multiflyby.
-
#38
by
deadman1204
on 07 Nov, 2022 15:02
-
Given the shortage of resources, I wonder if they should delay the NF5 competition.
Why? There are other places that can execute a NF mission. Just because JPL is out doesn't mean it should be delayed.
Also, delaying a new frontiers mission will push the next one back just as far at least. If NF5 is pushed back 5 years, that means NF6 is ALSO pushed back 5 years. All you functionally do is NOT get a NF mission.
-
#39
by
Todd Martin
on 07 Nov, 2022 15:52
-
A topic that has come up a few times with regards to NF 5, the South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return mission, the lunar geophysical network mission, and CLPS, is getting lunar landers to survive the lunar night. This is not an impossible technical problem. After all, the Soviets did it with Lunokhod. The real issue is doing it relatively inexpensively and at low mass. Inexpensively almost certainly means doing it without a radioactive heating source. The mass issue is a tougher one. Presumably, you could pack a lander with batteries and run a low level heater during the nighttime. But that would be heavy and wasteful. Also, you really want to be able to operate at least some instruments during the nighttime--having a seismic sensor that only works during the day is not ideal.
The CLPS companies know about all this, and presumably they have ideas about how to address it. However, they are also all focused on getting their first lander to work, so they probably are not devoting many resources to solving problems farther down the road. (Many of these companies don't have much in the way of personnel or other resources, so they have to say very focused on the near-term.)
The NASA science community has sponsored a series of workshops on the subject of surviving the lunar night. There is one in December.
I've tried to get more information on this workshop to see if it will be webcastor recorded but not having any luck. Can you give any links or further information?
-
#40
by
Blackstar
on 07 Nov, 2022 19:16
-
The NASA science community has sponsored a series of workshops on the subject of surviving the lunar night. There is one in December.
I've tried to get more information on this workshop to see if it will be webcastor recorded but not having any luck. Can you give any links or further information?
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/clps2022/
-
#41
by
Don2
on 07 Nov, 2022 20:20
-
Given the shortage of resources, I wonder if they should delay the NF5 competition.
Why? There are other places that can execute a NF mission. Just because JPL is out doesn't mean it should be delayed.
Because Dragonfly and Mars Sample Return are the two most ambitious planetary science missions ever attempted, and if they go badly over budget then one of the New Frontiers opportunities may have to be dropped. Even if Congress adds funding, that doesn't magically create additional experienced engineers and resources.
What I have in mind is pushing NF5 back by at least a year. That means more certainty about what Dragonfly, Mars Sample Return, Clipper and the Roman telescope are really going to cost.
There is also a lot of uncertainty about the US economy right now, and what that will mean for overall government spending. Interest rates on government debt have doubled over the past eight months, which will mean higher costs to service the national debt in future. It wouldn't surprise me if Congress pushed through cuts in spending. If a budget reduction collides with technical problems in Dragonfly or Mars Sample Return then the planetary program will be in trouble.
-
#42
by
deadman1204
on 07 Nov, 2022 20:48
-
Given the shortage of resources, I wonder if they should delay the NF5 competition.
Why? There are other places that can execute a NF mission. Just because JPL is out doesn't mean it should be delayed.
Because Dragonfly and Mars Sample Return are the two most ambitious planetary science missions ever attempted, and if they go badly over budget then one of the New Frontiers opportunities may have to be dropped. Even if Congress adds funding, that doesn't magically create additional experienced engineers and resources.
What I have in mind is pushing NF5 back by at least a year. That means more certainty about what Dragonfly, Mars Sample Return, Clipper and the Roman telescope are really going to cost.
There is also a lot of uncertainty about the US economy right now, and what that will mean for overall government spending. Interest rates on government debt have doubled over the past eight months, which will mean higher costs to service the national debt in future. It wouldn't surprise me if Congress pushed through cuts in spending. If a budget reduction collides with technical problems in Dragonfly or Mars Sample Return then the planetary program will be in trouble.
You're not wrong that the next year is gonna be a nightmare. Everything will be "but the debt" as an excuse to stop anything the Biden admin might wanna do. I doubt there will be a budget for a couple years though. Republicans goal when not in control is to stop dems, not legislate.
-
#43
by
Don2
on 07 Nov, 2022 21:25
-
@deadman1204
I'm more focused on the economics than the politics. For over thirty years inflation has been low and the markets have been happy to lend the US Government whatever they wanted to borrow at low interest rates. Suddenly things have changed. Hopefully it is temporary and by this time next year inflation will be crushed and interest rates heading down. If interest rates were to stay high the deficit will be a big concern for both parties. That would lead to an ugly fight over taxes and spending.
-
#44
by
Don2
on 07 Nov, 2022 21:28
-
Don2 - I think that the answer to whether or not NASA will delay NF5 depends on their announced assessments of whether Goddard and John Hopkins APL are suffering the same problems. If not, that plus possible teaming with industrial partners may provide sufficient capacity for a real competition.
The comet sample return is a good mission concept (and at least three variants of it were proposed the last time with one becoming a finalist). As a betting man (who is often wrong!) my money is on that or the Enceladus multiflyby.
Don't forget that APL has to deliver Dragonfly. Goddard also has the Roman Space telescope, which is currently supposed to launch by May 2027. Large space telescopes have a history of going over budget. So JPL, APL and Goddard are all committed to large projects with a high potential to go over budget. I don't see a lot of spare capacity for NF5.
I agree that Enceladus multiflyby will be a strong contender when the competition happens.
-
#45
by
Blackstar
on 07 Nov, 2022 23:48
-
What I have in mind is pushing NF5 back by at least a year.
I don't think you know just how unpopular an idea that would be in the scientific community. NF5 was supposed to happen several years ago. It's already very late. There are teams that have been waiting to propose for all that time.
-
#46
by
vjkane
on 08 Nov, 2022 00:31
-
Because Dragonfly and Mars Sample Return are the two most ambitious planetary science missions ever attempted, and if they go badly over budget then one of the New Frontiers opportunities may have to be dropped. Even if Congress adds funding, that doesn't magically create additional experienced engineers and resources.
After selection, the Juno mission was delayed by a couple of years to ease budget pressures across the larger program. That meant that Juno remained in the early definition period working the design for an extra two years. I later heard that that turned about to be a great gift that greatly reduced risk.
The delays for Dragonfly means that it, too, has a long early design phase and I expect that this also will reduce risk.
-
#47
by
vjkane
on 08 Nov, 2022 00:35
-
What I have in mind is pushing NF5 back by at least a year.
I don't think you know just how unpopular an idea that would be in the scientific community. NF5 was supposed to happen several years ago. It's already very late. There are teams that have been waiting to propose for all that time.
I think that Blackstar has the inside track on this. If anything, I'd expect that NASA might delay the target launch date (but not selection date) for NF5. It's a real headache and expensive to keep those proposal teams together.
From a press tweet on today's VEXAG meeting, it sounds as if NASA doesn't plan to delay the ~2025 call for Discovery proposals, although I wonder if they solicit just one instead of two since VERITAS' development will now occur in the window following the next selection.
However, I think anything now is tentative. I expect that the NASA planetary division managers feel that they are in crisis and are just trying to get the current program stable.
-
#48
by
Blackstar
on 08 Nov, 2022 15:26
-
What I have in mind is pushing NF5 back by at least a year.
I don't think you know just how unpopular an idea that would be in the scientific community. NF5 was supposed to happen several years ago. It's already very late. There are teams that have been waiting to propose for all that time.
I think that Blackstar has the inside track on this. If anything, I'd expect that NASA might delay the target launch date (but not selection date) for NF5. It's a real headache and expensive to keep those proposal teams together.
The public aspects of the NF program are the announcement of opportunity, the deadline when mission proposals are submitted (at least some of them are publicly announced by that time), the initial down-select, and then the final selection. However, you have to understand that before an announcement of opportunity, people are forming teams to prepare proposals. They are out recruiting people to work on the proposal and the mission if selected, and they are making initial inquiries to potential sponsors who will build the spacecraft. These are usually JPL, APL, Lockheed Martin, and maybe another company, but that's about it. There is a lot of effort put into all of this before the AO comes out, and then a lot more after the AO comes out and the proposals are due.
If NASA moves any of those deadlines, lots of people get upset. If you are a PI who has just spent a year or more recruiting people to work on your proposal, forming alliances, figuring out mission concepts and what you want to do, if NASA then moves the date, it is very disruptive. People can drop out of their commitments, go on to do other things, get distracted, etc.
I forget the details, but I believe that NF5 was originally supposed to be selected by 2019 and then got pushed back several times (maybe somebody can go look up the dates). There are a lot of people who are already annoyed by this and would be very annoyed at a further delay. Yeah, it's not their money, it's not even NASA's money. But the American space science program is heavily dependent upon the work of space scientists who work for universities, research institutions, and also NASA field centers. If the programs are managed badly, people will leave the field, find other things to do, lack motivation, and so on. So maintaining a regular and somewhat predictable cadence of new missions is important to effectively carrying out NASA's space science and exploration programs.
-
#49
by
vjkane
on 10 Nov, 2022 06:44
-
I forget the details, but I believe that NF5 was originally supposed to be selected by 2019 and then got pushed back several times (maybe somebody can go look up the dates). There are a lot of people who are already annoyed by this and would be very annoyed at a further delay. Yeah, it's not their money, it's not even NASA's money. But the American space science program is heavily dependent upon the work of space scientists who work for universities, research institutions, and also NASA field centers. If the programs are managed badly, people will leave the field, find other things to do, lack motivation, and so on. So maintaining a regular and somewhat predictable cadence of new missions is important to effectively carrying out NASA's space science and exploration programs.
NASA is fundamentally a science agency, which means that the science community is a primary constituent. NASA needs to maintain good relationships with it (which is one of the reasons they have so many ways of reaching out to the science community).
-
#50
by
Blackstar
on 10 Nov, 2022 10:31
-
I forget the details, but I believe that NF5 was originally supposed to be selected by 2019 and then got pushed back several times (maybe somebody can go look up the dates). There are a lot of people who are already annoyed by this and would be very annoyed at a further delay. Yeah, it's not their money, it's not even NASA's money. But the American space science program is heavily dependent upon the work of space scientists who work for universities, research institutions, and also NASA field centers. If the programs are managed badly, people will leave the field, find other things to do, lack motivation, and so on. So maintaining a regular and somewhat predictable cadence of new missions is important to effectively carrying out NASA's space science and exploration programs.
NASA is fundamentally a science agency, which means that the science community is a primary constituent. NASA needs to maintain good relationships with it (which is one of the reasons they have so many ways of reaching out to the science community).
I would not put it that way. If you are talking about all of NASA, I think NASA is fundamentally an engineering agency. The Science Mission Directorate is only one subset of NASA.
-
#51
by
vjkane
on 10 Nov, 2022 22:51
-
I would not put it that way. If you are talking about all of NASA, I think NASA is fundamentally an engineering agency. The Science Mission Directorate is only one subset of NASA.
NASA is more than one thing (exploration and advancing the state of engineering are also goals), but the laws establishing and renewing the agency list science as a primary goal. This is unlike other federal agencies (some of which I work with) that do science, but not as a primary goal.
-
#52
by
Blackstar
on 10 Nov, 2022 23:48
-
I would not put it that way. If you are talking about all of NASA, I think NASA is fundamentally an engineering agency. The Science Mission Directorate is only one subset of NASA.
NASA is more than one thing (exploration and advancing the state of engineering are also goals), but the laws establishing and renewing the agency list science as a primary goal. This is unlike other federal agencies (some of which I work with) that do science, but not as a primary goal.
Most of the NASA budget is human spaceflight/exploration, which is fundamentally engineering. And if you look at the NASA workforce, way more engineers than scientists.
-
#53
by
Fequalsma
on 11 Nov, 2022 04:32
-
NASA mission is science and technology (includes engineering).
I would not put it that way. If you are talking about all of NASA, I think NASA is fundamentally an engineering agency. The Science Mission Directorate is only one subset of NASA.
NASA is more than one thing (exploration and advancing the state of engineering are also goals), but the laws establishing and renewing the agency list science as a primary goal. This is unlike other federal agencies (some of which I work with) that do science, but not as a primary goal.
Most of the NASA budget is human spaceflight/exploration, which is fundamentally engineering. And if you look at the NASA workforce, way more engineers than scientists.
-
#54
by
Blackstar
on 11 Nov, 2022 16:44
-
This may mean that JPL effectively cannot propose a mission for the NF5 competition. The evaluation of any proposal includes the capacity to implement the proposed mission.
I would normally expect JPL to propose at least one and probably two missions for an NF competition. If JPL effectively can't propose missions, then we may have a much smaller field of proposals. Certainly John Hopkins APL will propose as may other NASA centers.
I was thinking about this yesterday and I don't buy it. There was nothing in the Psyche discussion that said that JPL cannot take on new missions, and certainly nothing saying that they cannot compete for NF5. The time horizon for any NF5 launch is years away, and the selection won't occur for how long? A year or two? The work is going to start after Europa Clipper is launched. I don't see why JPL is out of NF5 at all.
-
#55
by
Don2
on 11 Nov, 2022 18:00
-
I was thinking about this yesterday and I don't buy it. There was nothing in the Psyche discussion that said that JPL cannot take on new missions, and certainly nothing saying that they cannot compete for NF5. The time horizon for any NF5 launch is years away, and the selection won't occur for how long? A year or two? The work is going to start after Europa Clipper is launched. I don't see why JPL is out of NF5 at all.
The NF5 selection is currently scheduled for Q3 2025 according to budget documents. By 2026 a number of big projects will have declining funding needs, if everything goes to plan, so there would be room for new starts that year. However, if Europa Clipper (launch Oct. 2024) or Mars Sample Return (launch July 2028) goes over budget, new starts at JPL will have to be delayed. Dragonfly (launch Jun 2027) and the Roman Space telescope (launch May 2027) are being built on the East Coast, but they could also eat up the budget if they slip.
There is already a queue of projects waiting to get started. VERITAS, NEOSM and Uranus Orbiter are already selected, and they should take priority when funds become available.
JPL could compete for missions that have flexible launch windows. Lunar sample return and Lunar geophysical network can easily be delayed until resources are available. However, missions going to Saturn or to a comet will need to launch in a specific year.
-
#56
by
Blackstar
on 11 Nov, 2022 18:23
-
However, if Europa Clipper (launch Oct. 2024) or Mars Sample Return (launch July 2028) goes over budget, new starts at JPL will have to be delayed. Dragonfly (launch Jun 2027) and the Roman Space telescope (launch May 2027) are being built on the East Coast, but they could also eat up the budget if they slip.
If the budget is tight, that affects NF5 overall, not specifically JPL.
-
#57
by
deadman1204
on 11 Nov, 2022 18:30
-
This may mean that JPL effectively cannot propose a mission for the NF5 competition. The evaluation of any proposal includes the capacity to implement the proposed mission.
I would normally expect JPL to propose at least one and probably two missions for an NF competition. If JPL effectively can't propose missions, then we may have a much smaller field of proposals. Certainly John Hopkins APL will propose as may other NASA centers.
I was thinking about this yesterday and I don't buy it. There was nothing in the Psyche discussion that said that JPL cannot take on new missions, and certainly nothing saying that they cannot compete for NF5. The time horizon for any NF5 launch is years away, and the selection won't occur for how long? A year or two? The work is going to start after Europa Clipper is launched. I don't see why JPL is out of NF5 at all.
Isn't it also a manpower thing? That jpl is just trying to do too much?
-
#58
by
Blackstar
on 11 Nov, 2022 20:42
-
Isn't it also a manpower thing? That jpl is just trying to do too much?
Yes, but nobody said that they cannot take on any new missions, just that they have too much
now.
-
#59
by
redliox
on 11 Nov, 2022 21:05
-
Isn't it also a manpower thing? That jpl is just trying to do too much?
Yes, but nobody said that they cannot take on any new missions, just that they have too much now.
Does the manpower issues relate to a lack of students or new scientists coming into the field? I've heard of professors who try to work into theirs 80s, or issues like acquiring a more diverse workforce. Has that been an issue for JPL or is it more related to just a facility reaching capacity?
-
#60
by
vjkane
on 11 Nov, 2022 21:41
-
Isn't it also a manpower thing? That jpl is just trying to do too much?
Yes, but nobody said that they cannot take on any new missions, just that they have too much now.
One of the recommendations of the review board was that JPL not take on any new missions until the staffing and skills problems are addressed.
If VERITAS is restarted (the "if" comes from Glaze reportedly), it would represent a new mission in the JPL portfolio starting about 2025.
JPL's problems could have multiple other impacts. It traditionally does the planetary flagship missions, and an ice giant orbiter would need to have work begin in the 2025-2028 window to launch in the early 2030's planetary alignment opportunities.
JH APL has the capacity to do a smaller ice giant mission, but I've not heard of them taking on anything as large as a major planetary orbiter.
Anyone know more?
-
#61
by
Blackstar
on 12 Nov, 2022 02:29
-
One of the recommendations of the review board was that JPL not take on any new missions until the staffing and skills problems are addressed.
Addressed can include hiring more people. That said, it's not easy to hire more people. JPL is more attractive than NASA as an employer (JPL does cool stuff, but NASA doesn't have a glowing reputation among young engineers), but it's not like there are experienced planetary mission engineers out there looking for jobs.
-
#62
by
vjkane
on 12 Nov, 2022 07:09
-
One of the recommendations of the review board was that JPL not take on any new missions until the staffing and skills problems are addressed.
Addressed can include hiring more people. That said, it's not easy to hire more people. JPL is more attractive than NASA as an employer (JPL does cool stuff, but NASA doesn't have a glowing reputation among young engineers), but it's not like there are experienced planetary mission engineers out there looking for jobs.
Once people are hired, they need to learn their new jobs, the intricacies of the program(s) they are working on, and the culture. This is a multiyear fix, and part of the fix may be that JPL just can't take on as much as once thought on a for a longish time.
Right now, the JPL website lists 15 missions in development, which doesn't include what will be largest one, MSR:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions?mission_status=future&page=1MSR is listed under proposed (along with a Europa lander that is no longer under serious consideration:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions?mission_status=proposed&page=1These missions range from cubesats to MSR, but they are a huge range of missions, all needing engineers and technical managers.
-
#63
by
LouScheffer
on 12 Nov, 2022 15:07
-
One of the recommendations of the review board was that JPL not take on any new missions until the staffing and skills problems are addressed.
Addressed can include hiring more people. That said, it's not easy to hire more people. JPL is more attractive than NASA as an employer (JPL does cool stuff, but NASA doesn't have a glowing reputation among young engineers), but it's not like there are experienced planetary mission engineers out there looking for jobs.
JPL, when I worked there for a summer many years ago, achieved its enviable record by brute force and institutional knowledge. The engineering teams were huge (I recall the thermal design team for one mission alone had 40+ engineers), and many had worked on previous missions and knew exactly what had gone wrong (and right) on those missions.
This is a great model for building things that have to work (it's hard to beat a huge team of smart folks with relevant experience) but it does not scale well. Even smart new hires can take decades to acquire relevant experience in a complex field such as designing planetary probes. In particular (in my opinion), new hires are often experts in one field (say power systems, or mechanical design, etc.) but spacecraft design is driven by the tradeoffs between very different sub-systems. This requires a working knowledge of many other design specialties other than your own. This wider view is not taught in schools and takes years to acquire.
-
#64
by
ccdengr
on 12 Nov, 2022 16:20
-
-
#65
by
Zed_Noir
on 12 Nov, 2022 18:37
-
One of the recommendations of the review board was that JPL not take on any new missions until the staffing and skills problems are addressed.
Addressed can include hiring more people. That said, it's not easy to hire more people. JPL is more attractive than NASA as an employer (JPL does cool stuff, but NASA doesn't have a glowing reputation among young engineers), but it's not like there are experienced planetary mission engineers out there looking for jobs.
JPL, when I worked there for a summer many years ago, achieved its enviable record by brute force and institutional knowledge. The engineering teams were huge (I recall the thermal design team for one mission alone had 40+ engineers), and many had worked on previous missions and knew exactly what had gone wrong (and right) on those missions.
This is a great model for building things that have to work (it's hard to beat a huge team of smart folks with relevant experience) but it does not scale well. Even smart new hires can take decades to acquire relevant experience in a complex field such as designing planetary probes. In particular (in my opinion), new hires are often experts in one field (say power systems, or mechanical design, etc.) but spacecraft design is driven by the tradeoffs between very different sub-systems. This requires a working knowledge of many other design specialties other than your own. This wider view is not taught in schools and takes years to acquire.
Like ex-Space employees who processed expertise & knowledge from working in the different parts of SpaceX. Unfortunately, such personnel is in high demand in space and high tech fields.
-
#66
by
Redclaws
on 12 Nov, 2022 18:56
-
Fixing problems by hiring more people: it's like Fred Brooks has been forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
Isn’t the idea here that JPL is spread too thin and lacks capacity? Brooks’ argument is about the costs of adding people to a given project, most particularly one which is in progress, given the difficulties of communication and maintaining conceptual/design integrity. JPL has a number of projects.
I guess basically Brooks doesn’t seem relevant here.
-
#67
by
Don2
on 15 Nov, 2022 08:05
-
To assess the load on JPL, I added up the budget for JPL lead programs over the last few years. The budget did increase a lot from FY2021 to FY2022 due to Mars Sample Return.
FY2021: $1.167 billion
FY2022: $1.72 billion
FY2023: $1.553 billion
(2023$)
However, the lab was also busy in FY2019, with $1.775 billion (2020$) worth of work.
All across the economy we are currently seeing labor shortages, wage growth and inflation. I think the root cause of the Psyche delay is the pandemic. ViaSat-3 was also hit with a lack of critical skilled workers, according to this Space News story
https://spacenews.com/lack-of-critical-skilled-workers-delays-first-viasat-3-launch-to-late-summer/The project selected by the New Frontiers 5 competition will start in FY2026. By that time I think JPL will have their issues sorted.
-
#68
by
vjkane
on 10 Jan, 2023 21:25
-
Full draft NF5 AO is now available:
https://go.nasa.gov/NF5DraftAOInterestingly, there's an incentive to collaborate on proposals (and the selected mission) with ESA:
"NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have formalized a partnership for the NF5 mission that provides an optional contribution(s). The contribution(s) may include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility."
In the ESA system, instruments are paid for by the individual nations; presumably ESA is offering to collaborate under the assumption that there also would be instrument(s) from European nations.
Other key points:
Proposals prepared in response to this AO must describe an investigation that addresses at least one out of any of the six mission themes described below. These themes, listed without priority, are:
• Comet Surface Sample Return
• Io Observer
• Lunar Geophysical Network
• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus), and
• Saturn Probe.
The following schedule describes the planned major milestones for this AO:
AO Release Date ...........................................November 2023 (target)
Preproposal Conference .........................................................AO Release + ~3 weeks (target)
Mandatory Notice of Intent to Propose Deadline
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time ....................................................AO Release + 4-6 weeks (target)
Electronic Proposal Submittal Deadline
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time ....................................................April 2024 (target)
Letters of Commitment Due (with Proposal).........................April 2024 (target)
Deadline for Augmented Submission via the NASA Box service
at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time ......................................................April 2024 (target)
Step-1 Selections Announced (target) ...................................December 2024 (target)
Initiate Phase A Concept Studies (target) ..............................January 2025 (target)
Phase A Concept Study Reports Due (target) ........................January 2026 (target)
Down-selection of Investigation for Flight (target) ...............…October 2026
AO-Required Launch Readiness Date ...................................January 1, 2031, to December 31, 2034
-
#69
by
Torten
on 12 Jan, 2023 12:41
-
Reckon it will be a clear win for Comet Sample Return. ESA has got expertise from working around comets from Rosetta, and CAESAR was the finalist last time.
Lunar sample return looks increasingly ridiculous with the Artemis Programme, and could probably be done on a Discovery budget with the new commerical landers.
Lunar Geophysical Network can be done to some extent as part of Artemis.
Io Observer - the only 'new' proposal compared to NF4 - I'd imagine that there might a upscaled proposal by the same team behind the Io Volcano Observer. Jupiter is already getting JUICE and Clipper though.
Saturn Probe - honestly surprised that this is a suggestion for NF5, nor has there be much development of proposals.
Ocean World (Enceladus) - this would be the other strong proposal in my view, as it could take the place of the Orbilander Flagship mission, which might free up funds for NF6 before the next decadal. Depends if most of the goals of Orbilander could be covered on a smaller budget.
-
#70
by
MRJC
on 23 Mar, 2023 10:16
-
FY 2024 President's Budget Request
-
#71
by
MRJC
on 28 Mar, 2023 02:32
-
03/22/2023 - Sixth Community Announcement: Advance Notice Regarding Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (AO)
SAM.gov Special Notice ID Number: NNH20ZDA016L
Release of draft AO ...................................................January 10, 2023 (actual)
Estimated Release of final AO .................................. November 2023 (target)
Estimated Proposal due date .................................... March 2024 (target)
This community announcement (CA) is the sixth in a series to provide an advance notice of NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plan to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit New Frontiers Program mission investigations. The New Frontiers Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD's planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap for the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC). The target release date for the final AO is Fall 2023. This NF5 CA shares a decision recently reached by NASA about the availability of Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) for the NF5 AO.
NASA has assessed the availability and readiness of RPS technologies for the NF5 AO. Based on this assessment, NASA has made the following decisions to provide the lowest risk to proposers:
The NF5 AO will offer up to two fueled Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) units for proposals requiring radioisotope electrical power for spacecraft.
The NF5 AO will offer up to twenty fueled radioisotope heater units (RHUs) for proposals requiring thermal heating for specific spacecraft components.
The PI-Managed Mission Cost must cover 1) a portion of the cost(s) for the delivery and integration of MMRTG(s) andor RHU(s) to the spacecraft and 2) costs for nonstandard nuclear launch services and the nuclear launch approval process. NASA recognizes the community's urgent need to know these additional costs and is striving to provide them prior to the release of the AO in Fall 2023.
NASA has not approved the issuance of the New Frontiers AO. This CA does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in anticipation of the Final New Frontiers 5 AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk.
Further information will be posted on the New Frontiers Program Acquisition Page at
https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/ as it becomes available.Questions and feedback may be emailed using "6th CA for NF5" in the subject line to Dr. Curt Niebur, the New Frontiers Program Lead Scientist, via
[email protected].
-
#72
by
vjkane
on 23 Jun, 2023 11:08
-
-
#73
by
skizzo
on 23 Jun, 2023 14:05
-
What a shocker...
-
#74
by
Zed_Noir
on 24 Jun, 2023 02:48
-
.....Also, the next Discovery AO (and by extension any decision on restarting VERITAS) also would be delayed.
More than likely that they will just outright cancel VERITAS, if the budget gets tight. IMO.
-
#75
by
redliox
on 25 Jun, 2023 00:33
-
A big pity, although I'll settle for the missions currently in the works.
-
#76
by
deadman1204
on 25 Jun, 2023 01:13
-
.....Also, the next Discovery AO (and by extension any decision on restarting VERITAS) also would be delayed.
More than likely that they will just outright cancel VERITAS, if the budget gets tight. IMO.
When not if. Republicans are gonna try for a 20-30% cut in the full nasa budget.
Though NASA might just slow walk veritas, leave it kinda cancelled, cause that way they dont piss everyone off even more.
-
#77
by
Blackstar
on 25 Jun, 2023 03:15
-
Though NASA might just slow walk veritas, leave it kinda cancelled, cause that way they dont piss everyone off even more.
There's a problem with doing that. The people who were on the mission proposal need to get paid. When a mission is selected, they assume that they are going to have jobs. This also applies to the contractors that are also listed on that proposal. If the money never comes through, all those people go on to other things and some leave the field entirely. If the project then gets a go-ahead, the people and contractors may not be available. At the very least, it drives the costs up.
-
#78
by
vjkane
on 25 Jun, 2023 04:56
-
-
#79
by
raketa
on 25 Jun, 2023 05:49
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
-
#80
by
Blackstar
on 25 Jun, 2023 12:09
-
A related factor are the rapidly increasing costs of the Mars sample return program:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/the-mars-sample-return-mission-is-starting-to-give-nasa-sticker-shock/?utm_source=pocket_saves
I think that is the overarching context for all of this discussion. But the problems are different for each of these projects. Kicking New Frontiers down the road has not been good for the science community, because there are people who have been sitting on proposals for years now ready to submit them, but they are losing their team members the longer it takes. (Think of it this way: you have a proposal and your chief instrument scientist is working on a current project that ends in 2025--if you win the NF selection, that person can go to work in 2026, but if the selection gets delayed, they start a new project in 2025 and are no longer available.) For VERITAS the problem is that people already made decisions assuming that they would get to work, and that's not happening, so should they get another job now, or hold out for another six months?
-
#81
by
ccdengr
on 25 Jun, 2023 16:18
-
For VERITAS the problem is that people already made decisions assuming that they would get to work, and that's not happening, so should they get another job now, or hold out for another six months?
The size of the workforce is phased, it's not like they hire everybody fresh at the start of phase A and they all work on the same mission until the end. JPL is a "matrix" organization and people move from project to project as needed. It's true that JPL has to figure out how to pay everyone, though.
Definitely this is an issue with the science teams, but they were almost certainly not getting a lot of money until phase C/D at the earliest, and mostly after launch.
-
#82
by
deadman1204
on 25 Jun, 2023 16:34
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi. SpaceX might be landing on the moon in 2026? Which will be MUCH simpler than a mars landing. Don't forget, you can only make a mars attempt every 2 years or so. The first couple attempts will undoubtedly fail too (since spaceX doesn't prepare for a perfect attempt, but does things in stages). So each attempt will take 2 years, and they won't be ready to make any attempt until after artimis anyways.
This ignores that Starship will need a boatload of changes even after artimis is over to make a mars landing attempt.
-
#83
by
Blackstar
on 25 Jun, 2023 16:55
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
You mean I cannot hire Starship to clean my bathroom and wash my car?
-
#84
by
vjkane
on 26 Jun, 2023 13:03
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
You mean I cannot hire Starship to clean my bathroom and wash my car?
With all the Red Dragon flights, we don't need Starship.
-
#85
by
VSECOTSPE
on 26 Jun, 2023 17:15
-
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
It’s not. But when the:
— former AA (Zurbuchen) has stated that JPL has made “horrendus” mistakes on the lander and that he would “seriously consider” taking it away from them;
— HQ has undertaken the second independent review board in three years on the mission before it has even reached PDR; and
— costs are already threatening/delaying at least three other major missions (VERITAS, Dragonfly, Uranus) and are projected to at least double going forward;
Then it’s far past time to seriously review and develop some alternatives. And within that set of alternatives, it would be boneheaded not to see if the billions being put into a system ostensibly designed to land on Mars and return to Earth could not be leveraged towards MSR.
If the mission is important enough to consider blowing $10B on, then it’s important enough to perform due diligence on options.
-
#86
by
deadman1204
on 27 Jun, 2023 22:36
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
You mean I cannot hire Starship to clean my bathroom and wash my car?
well actually, you might be able to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_(band)
Starship was also a band back in the 80s, who knows what they are doing now
-
#87
by
Blackstar
on 27 Jun, 2023 23:39
-
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
It’s not. But when the:
— former AA (Zurbuchen) has stated that JPL has made “horrendus” mistakes on the lander and that he would “seriously consider” taking it away from them;
— HQ has undertaken the second independent review board in three years on the mission before it has even reached PDR; and
— costs are already threatening/delaying at least three other major missions (VERITAS, Dragonfly, Uranus) and are projected to at least double going forward;
Then it’s far past time to seriously review and develop some alternatives. And within that set of alternatives, it would be boneheaded not to see if the billions being put into a system ostensibly designed to land on Mars and return to Earth could not be leveraged towards MSR.
If the mission is important enough to consider blowing $10B on, then it’s important enough to perform due diligence on options.
First, you quoted the wrong person. I didn't write the above.
I deleted the rest of my response here. There's a lot of nonsense above, and it's better suited for the MSR thread which is now a LEGO playroom where people are designing their own Mars missions. This is the NF5 thread.
-
#88
by
VSECOTSPE
on 28 Jun, 2023 00:34
-
First, you quoted the wrong person. I didn't write the above.
Thanks. My mistake. Corrected upthread.
-
#89
by
MRJC
on 28 Jul, 2023 06:36
-
-
#90
by
deadman1204
on 28 Jul, 2023 14:55
-
-
#91
by
Blackstar
on 28 Jul, 2023 15:46
-
Question though, doesn't the decadal survey kinda lay out the new frontiers missions prospects? How does that interact with the CAPS committee making a new mission list?
CAPS' role is to interpret the decadal survey for NASA. If CAPS is asked to come up with a new list, they will base it upon what is already in the DS. I ran a study that did that activity back in 2007.
-
#92
by
vjkane
on 28 Jul, 2023 16:55
-
Question though, doesn't the decadal survey kinda lay out the new frontiers missions prospects? How does that interact with the CAPS committee making a new mission list?
CAPS' role is to interpret the decadal survey for NASA. If CAPS is asked to come up with a new list, they will base it upon what is already in the DS. I ran a study that did that activity back in 2007.
Blackstar is probably the most knowledgeable person on this list regarding this type of process, as he indicates.
The Decadal Survey had a set of candidate missions that expired or would have been added at different times. In addition, some candidates might not seem as compelling now: Venus, for example, given DAVINCI and EnVision (and perhaps VERITAS) or the lunar south pole mission given the Chinese plans to return a sample from there in the next couple of years.
There's also an active contingent trying to have a NF-class candidate mission to Triton added. Adding a mission class seems less likely to me, but the launch of the next NF mission would now be in a time frame where such a mission would make sense from orbital lineups.
Here's my cheatsheet list of what the last Decadal decided:
-
#93
by
Blackstar
on 28 Jul, 2023 21:23
-
There's also an active contingent trying to have a NF-class candidate mission to Triton added.
Notably, that mission was not added in the decadal survey.
-
#94
by
redliox
on 29 Jul, 2023 00:01
-
What if we give SpaceX 1 billion to save 7 billion, and we will have samples in no time? Maybe they could even be collected by humans?
starship isnt a magic schoolbus that can do everything like sci fi.
You made me imagine Elon Musk with red hair on a yellow starship, and now I'm terrified!
-
#95
by
Blackstar
on 29 Jul, 2023 02:58
-
Here's my cheatsheet list of what the last Decadal decided:
The NF5 mission list has been a victim of circumstance, and there's now a good justification for revisiting it.
When the Academies started the planetary decadal survey, the expectation was that NASA would start the NF5 process during the decadal survey, and therefore NASA would use the list of possible missions from the previous decadal survey. Because everybody knew what these were and had been preparing for them, there was no conflict of interest for anybody working on the DS to be involved in proposing an NF5 mission. Then NASA slipped the NF5 process until after the DS was going to finish, and this created a conundrum for the DS: should the DS pick the list of missions for NF5? We determined that many members of the DS were planning on submitting proposals to NF5, and that would have put them in conflict if they also picked the list of missions, and they would probably have to resign from the DS to avoid that conflict, thus causing the DS to collapse. The result was that the DS steering committee decided that they would not pick a new list of missions for NF5. That caused people to complain, but there was really no alternative to doing that. We figured that the NF5 list would not be perfect, but there were at least viable missions to pursue.
But as the NF5 process got further delayed, it has called into question the viability of that list. And if Congress cuts the budget and further delays NF5, it makes sense to revisit the NF5 mission list.
-
#96
by
deadman1204
on 31 Jul, 2023 19:35
-
There's also an active contingent trying to have a NF-class candidate mission to Triton added.
IS there plutonium available for a triton mission? With the US probably giving some to Europe for Rosalind Franklin, plus the Uranus mission coming up...
-
#97
by
vjkane
on 01 Aug, 2023 15:57
-
There's also an active contingent trying to have a NF-class candidate mission to Triton added.
IS there plutonium available for a triton mission? With the US probably giving some to Europe for Rosalind Franklin, plus the Uranus mission coming up...
Depends on if the Uranus mission goes forward and how much plutonium is reserved for it.
-
#98
by
ccdengr
on 01 Aug, 2023 16:34
-
IS there plutonium available for a triton mission?
Nobody knows. At the last OPAG meeting, there was concern expressed that enough plutonium might not be available for the Uranus flagship, much less anything else. Of course, with the current budget situation it seems delusional that any of these missions will happen any time soon IMHO. And I don't believe NASA has formally committed to doing anything for ESA's Exomars mission, so if that fell through I wouldn't be surprised either.
From the March 2023 NASA IG report,
https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/NASA/IG-23-010.pdfAccordingly, to better manage mission planning challenges, DOE and NASA established constant rate
production, or CRP, to make the volume of Pu-238 available for NASA missions more predictable.
However, the RPS Program faces three challenges that affect the predictability of Pu-238 availability and
insert risk into mission planning:
1. Current production is lower than planned,
2. Overly optimistic expectations about DOE flexibility to increase Pu-238 production beyond CRP
plan levels, and
3. Lack of transparency into DOE inventory of Pu-238 and base elements.
-
#99
by
Don2
on 01 Aug, 2023 21:43
-
The Congress is proposing an 18% cut in the inflation adjusted budget for planetary science from 2023 levels. That works out to about a $600 million reduction. There is no way to make a cut of that size without serious damage to the program.
As I see it the options are:
1/ Cut CLPS and Dragonfly. CLPS is running late and has failed to produce any results so far. Dragonfly might have broken through the New Frontiers cost cap. It was supposed to have completed KDP-C in June. Nothing has been said about the results of the review.
2/ Cut the current Mars Sample Return effort and send the program back for reformulation. This means accepting that the Chinese will probably win the race to return the first Mars sample to Earth. On current schedules they are already two years ahead of the US. A five to ten year delay produced by a Congressional budget cut will hand them a huge opportunity.
There is a lot we don't know. Little has been said on the record about the true state of MSR. Nothing has been said about the latest review of Dragonfly. Our politicians like their theater, and we don't know if they are serious about these cuts. They certainly aren't cutting the money wasting stuff in NASA or the Pentagon. Instead they are targeting one of the most efficient and productive parts of the government.
-
#100
by
deadman1204
on 02 Aug, 2023 14:19
-
The Congress is proposing an 18% cut in the inflation adjusted budget for planetary science from 2023 levels. That works out to about a $600 million reduction. There is no way to make a cut of that size without serious damage to the program.
As I see it the options are:
1/ Cut CLPS and Dragonfly. CLPS is running late and has failed to produce any results so far. Dragonfly might have broken through the New Frontiers cost cap. It was supposed to have completed KDP-C in June. Nothing has been said about the results of the review.
2/ Cut the current Mars Sample Return effort and send the program back for reformulation. This means accepting that the Chinese will probably win the race to return the first Mars sample to Earth. On current schedules they are already two years ahead of the US. A five to ten year delay produced by a Congressional budget cut will hand them a huge opportunity.
There is a lot we don't know. Little has been said on the record about the true state of MSR. Nothing has been said about the latest review of Dragonfly. Our politicians like their theater, and we don't know if they are serious about these cuts. They certainly aren't cutting the money wasting stuff in NASA or the Pentagon. Instead they are targeting one of the most efficient and productive parts of the government.
its a good thing you not in charge
-
#101
by
Don2
on 02 Aug, 2023 22:35
-
its a good thing you not in charge
Do you have anything more to add?
It would be nice to stop the cuts. Maybe Congress will meet angry constituents when they go home for summer recess. Maybe it is all theater for the media and they are not going to go through with it. And the Senate should not be allowed to get away with the claim that their budget "keeps us ahead of China." This budget deletes programs and will open up major opportunities for the Chinese.
If however it all goes ahead then I think the priorities are:
1/ Protect the current fleet of operating spacecraft and the scientists who do the science. We will get 10-20 years of discoveries even if NASA never launches another mission.
2/ Protect spacecraft that are partly built and keep them moving towards launch. This means protecting projects that have passed KDP-C.
3/ There's not much point in selecting new missions if Congress doesn't want to fund the missions already selected. NF5 and new Discovery competitions should be moved well into the future.
4/ After that, there are not many ways to make the numbers add up. CLPS, Dragonfly and MSR are the big items. Something has to go. Less funding equals sad and painful program cuts. That's the decision of Congress.
-
#102
by
whitelancer64
on 02 Aug, 2023 22:59
-
its a good thing you not in charge
Do you have anything more to add?
It would be nice to stop the cuts. Maybe Congress will meet angry constituents when they go home for summer recess. Maybe it is all theater for the media and they are not going to go through with it. And the Senate should not be allowed to get away with the claim that their budget "keeps us ahead of China." This budget deletes programs and will open up major opportunities for the Chinese.
If however it all goes ahead then I think the priorities are:
1/ Protect the current fleet of operating spacecraft and the scientists who do the science. We will get 10-20 years of discoveries even if NASA never launches another mission.
2/ Protect spacecraft that are partly built and keep them moving towards launch. This means protecting projects that have passed KDP-C.
3/ There's not much point in selecting new missions if Congress doesn't want to fund the missions already selected. NF5 and new Discovery competitions should be moved well into the future.
4/ After that, there are not many ways to make the numbers add up. CLPS, Dragonfly and MSR are the big items. Something has to go. Less funding equals sad and painful program cuts. That's the decision of Congress.
It wouldn't make much difference if there are angry constituents, and it's not media theater. NASA's budget cut is part of the deal made a couple of months ago to raise the debt ceiling, which caps non-defense discretionary funding at FY 2023 levels.
NASA's particularly hard hit because the appropriation bills give full funding for the Artemis program and shortfalls everything else.
-
#103
by
Don2
on 03 Aug, 2023 01:37
-
NASA's particularly hard hit because the appropriation bills give full funding for the Artemis program and shortfalls everything else.
Why not just axe SLS? That is going to become obsolete very quickly if Starship works. If Starship fails it is irrelevant because there is no way to land. It would save $2.5 billion in 2024 alone. You would have to give SpaceX some of that to launch the astronauts, but they can handle that.
It would give the deficit ceiling crowd a big, high profile victory in their fight against government waste. I'm sure Congress would be thrilled to take credit for that. Win-win.
-
#104
by
Zed_Noir
on 03 Aug, 2023 12:36
-
NASA's particularly hard hit because the appropriation bills give full funding for the Artemis program and shortfalls everything else.
Why not just axe SLS? That is going to become obsolete very quickly if Starship works. If Starship fails it is irrelevant because there is no way to land. It would save $2.5 billion in 2024 alone. You would have to give SpaceX some of that to launch the astronauts, but they can handle that.
<snip>
Politically axing the SLS/Orion/Gateway triple hog troughs will be very hard. Since they are mostly jobs programs for certain Congressional districts. Doesn't matter if those programs is producing something or not.
The Congressional critters will mouth all sort of excuses to maintain the triple hog troughs. Since there is more constituents (aka voters) being supported by those programs. While the programs with smaller budgets are either having their budgets cut or being cancel, since they aren't supporting that many constituents.
In case of the New Frontier 5 selection. It seems that the stakeholders have to decide if the previous Decadal Survey list of goals is still relevant or choose a new list of goals. AIUI the workforce needed to build the various probes is overstretch and aging, availability of Plutonium for RTGs and budget overrun with the current Flagship programs are among the issues disrupting new programs getting started and not extending old programs.
My guess is that the New Frontier 5 announcement will be defer for a few years and the unfunded Venusian VERITAS mission will not be restarted.
-
#105
by
DistantTemple
on 03 Aug, 2023 13:03
-
The Congress is proposing an 18% cut in the inflation adjusted budget for planetary science from 2023 levels. That works out to about a $600 million reduction. There is no way to make a cut of that size without serious damage to the program.
As I see it the options are:
1/ Cut CLPS and Dragonfly. CLPS is running late and has failed to produce any results so far. Dragonfly might have broken through the New Frontiers cost cap. It was supposed to have completed KDP-C in June. Nothing has been said about the results of the review.
2/ Cut the current Mars Sample Return effort and send the program back for reformulation. This means accepting that the Chinese will probably win the race to return the first Mars sample to Earth. On current schedules they are already two years ahead of the US. A five to ten year delay produced by a Congressional budget cut will hand them a huge opportunity.
There is a lot we don't know. Little has been said on the record about the true state of MSR. Nothing has been said about the latest review of Dragonfly. Our politicians like their theater, and we don't know if they are serious about these cuts. They certainly aren't cutting the money wasting stuff in NASA or the Pentagon. Instead they are targeting one of the most efficient and productive parts of the government.
SpaceX could well overtake Mars Sample Return. SpaceX IS delivering on their plans and promises. As long as there is confidence that SpaceX will continue to succeed, and continue with its Mars programme, MSR is somewhat wasted money. A modified MSR should work with SX to provide a rover(s) etc, to bring back samples local to the first SS return flight to earth, and/or to collect the samples "Percy" is depositing. Or just develop a plan where SX is contracted to to that. IMO SX would need to bring back and analyse samples to help plan their "base" and "operations" (including ISRU for building etc..) So sharing expertise with NASA and returning NASA samples is IOM obvious!
Edit: I've just had a look at the other threads:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59133.msg2502155#msg2502155 (cost reduction MSR etc...) And see this has all been discussed there. I now think a MSR style operation is a benefit... But any change/cut in the MSR program depends on how that is progressing, and the latest prognosis for timing, cast and success. So I didn't know enough to post! but I don't think the issue is closed. However I withdraw cutting MSR funding at the moment.
-
#106
by
whitelancer64
on 03 Aug, 2023 18:10
-
The Congress is proposing an 18% cut in the inflation adjusted budget for planetary science from 2023 levels. That works out to about a $600 million reduction. There is no way to make a cut of that size without serious damage to the program.
As I see it the options are:
1/ Cut CLPS and Dragonfly. CLPS is running late and has failed to produce any results so far. Dragonfly might have broken through the New Frontiers cost cap. It was supposed to have completed KDP-C in June. Nothing has been said about the results of the review.
2/ Cut the current Mars Sample Return effort and send the program back for reformulation. This means accepting that the Chinese will probably win the race to return the first Mars sample to Earth. On current schedules they are already two years ahead of the US. A five to ten year delay produced by a Congressional budget cut will hand them a huge opportunity.
There is a lot we don't know. Little has been said on the record about the true state of MSR. Nothing has been said about the latest review of Dragonfly. Our politicians like their theater, and we don't know if they are serious about these cuts. They certainly aren't cutting the money wasting stuff in NASA or the Pentagon. Instead they are targeting one of the most efficient and productive parts of the government.
SpaceX could well overtake Mars Sample Return. SpaceX IS delivering on their plans and promises. As long as there is confidence that SpaceX will continue to succeed, and continue with its Mars programme, MSR is somewhat wasted money. A modified MSR should work with SX to provide a rover(s) etc, to bring back samples local to the first SS return flight to earth, and/or to collect the samples "Percy" is depositing. Or just develop a plan where SX is contracted to to that. IMO SX would need to bring back and analyse samples to help plan their "base" and "operations" (including ISRU for building etc..) So sharing expertise with NASA and returning NASA samples is IOM obvious!
Edit: I've just had a look at the other threads: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59133.msg2502155#msg2502155 (cost reduction MSR etc...) And see this has all been discussed there. I now think a MSR style operation is a benefit... But any change/cut in the MSR program depends on how that is progressing, and the latest prognosis for timing, cast and success. So I didn't know enough to post! but I don't think the issue is closed. However I withdraw cutting MSR funding at the moment.
The main issue is that the landing sites that SpaceX has been looking at are not close to Jezero. So using SpaceX for MSR would require a dedicated landing of a Starship, it would still need a Mars Ascent rocket and fetch rover / helicopter, and all of that would still have to be NASA funded.
-
#107
by
vjkane
on 03 Aug, 2023 19:44
-
Edit: I've just had a look at the other threads: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59133.msg2502155#msg2502155 (cost reduction MSR etc...) And see this has all been discussed there. I now think a MSR style operation is a benefit... But any change/cut in the MSR program depends on how that is progressing, and the latest prognosis for timing, cast and success. So I didn't know enough to post! but I don't think the issue is closed. However I withdraw cutting MSR funding at the moment.
Appreciate pointing discussions of SpaceX and MSR to that forum.
-
#108
by
Blackstar
on 03 Aug, 2023 21:17
-
SpaceX could well overtake Mars Sample Return. SpaceX IS delivering on their plans and promises. As long as there is confidence
This thread has nothing to do with SpaceX, MSR, or Starship. Why don't you take your fantasizing to the appropriate thread?
-
#109
by
redliox
on 03 Aug, 2023 22:09
-
Not thrilled about the overabundance of SpaceX commentary derailing this thread. I do, however, agree the MSR project might need to be put on pause along with the next NF selection if this budget crunch is bad. Otherwise I hope they continue on Dragonfly.
if Artemis is going to be taken seriously, along with human spaceflight beyond mere LEO, I think NF could afford to drop the Moon stuff and roll it into human spaceflight; basically have them survive as accessories humans can plant on the Moon.
-
#110
by
DistantTemple
on 04 Aug, 2023 00:54
-
SpaceX could well overtake Mars Sample Return. SpaceX IS delivering on their plans and promises. As long as there is confidence
This thread has nothing to do with SpaceX, MSR, or Starship. Why don't you take your fantasizing to the appropriate thread?
Sorry, black*/deadm ... I started reading about bathrooms, and cleaning cars.... (edit: and School busses) then about budget cuts and really thought that WAS the topic!!!!... and got carried away! Never read the title!EDIT 2: I do appreciate the
in depth personal knowledge that many posters on this site have, and that some of you work/have worked in the industry, or on these specific programs etc. - and your patience!Edit 3: A little bit of research - Its astounding that people who have devoted their life's work, to the Space industry, and to documenting the history of spaceflight, are accessible here, and share their work and knowledge with us interested spectators. Sorry for the hasty opinions, and the sarcasm. I have bookmarked The Space Review.
-
#111
by
Don2
on 04 Aug, 2023 06:36
-
The last New Frontiers selection seems to have started in 2017. 2026 would mean nearly a nine year gap between selections. No wonder the scientists are unhappy! And there might not be another one before the next decadal survey comes out in 2032, given the backlog of missions.
Why not shift all the lunar stuff to the Lunar discovery and exploration program? That program has a $459 million budget. $61 million of that is for the VIPER rover. Much of the other $397 million is being spent on CLPS, which is running far behind schedule and has failed to deliver anything. I think CLPS should be put on pause, and the money used instead for a competition between the Lunar Geophysical Network proposal and the Endurance-A rover proposal. The South Pole Aitken Basin mission is probably obsolete because the Chinese are doing something similar.
The New Frontiers proposal for Venus might be difficult to do right now because the Venus community is busy with DAVINCI, VERITAS and EnVision. So take that out of NF5 and let the next Decadal think about it.
Then merge what is left of the NF5 and NF6 missions. This would give a new list with:
Comet Surface Sample Return
Ceres Sample Return
Centaur Orbiter and Lander
Enceladus Multiple Flyby
Saturn Probe
Io Observer
-
#112
by
Blackstar
on 04 Aug, 2023 12:12
-
Why not shift all the lunar stuff to the Lunar discovery and exploration program?
Go read the decadal survey before proposing all the ways that you can re-do a program without knowing how and why it is formulated the way it is.
-
#113
by
ccdengr
on 04 Aug, 2023 17:24
-
Why not shift all the lunar stuff to the Lunar discovery and exploration program?
Go read the decadal survey...
The decadal survey essentially says that the NF5 mission candidates are left as is, while including a bunch of stuff about Endurance-A being part of Artemis, and devoting an entire chapter to complaining about how science goals are hard to insert into Artemis. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that it answers all questions about what should be done going forward in our current reality.
-
#114
by
Blackstar
on 04 Aug, 2023 20:34
-
Why not shift all the lunar stuff to the Lunar discovery and exploration program?
Go read the decadal survey...
The decadal survey essentially says that the NF5 mission candidates are left as is, while including a bunch of stuff about Endurance-A being part of Artemis, and devoting an entire chapter to complaining about how science goals are hard to insert into Artemis. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that it answers all questions about what should be done going forward in our current reality.
It's not supposed to answer all questions. But these programs are supposed to start with the science. The DS is where the science goals are defined. People here often forget that.
-
#115
by
Don2
on 05 Aug, 2023 10:56
-
Why not shift all the lunar stuff to the Lunar discovery and exploration program?
Go read the decadal survey before proposing all the ways that you can re-do a program without knowing how and why it is formulated the way it is.
The Decadal says:
"Recommendation: PSD should execute a strategic program to accomplish planetary science objectives for the Moon, with an organizational structure that aligns responsibility, authority, and accountability." (22-14)
Moving New Frontiers lunar missions to LDEP seems to be consistent with that. However, the Lunar Discovery and Exploration program (LDEP) does have really weird management structure. The decadal has this to say:
"LDEP is funded within the PSD budget, but the responsibility for its budget is split between PSD and the Exploration Science Strategy and Integration Office (ESSIO). ESSIO is focused primarily on inter- Division activity coordination and commercial partnerships, whereas PSD is responsible for accomplishing lunar science goals. LDEP funds many (but not all) lunar programs in PSD, but does not currently manage or coordinate them. In the current LDEP organizational structure, no single organizational chain has authority for executing lunar science missions and accomplishing lunar science. Further, there is as of yet no overall strategy for lunar scientific exploration or a program director or chief scientist to lead such a plan. As a result, despite substantial investment and tremendous potential for innovative lunar exploration, LDEP activities are not well coordinated or optimized to accomplish high-priority planetary science goals at the Moon." (22-13)
This sounds like a stupid way to run a program.
The Endurance-A rover seems like it covers all the science objectives of the South Pole-Aitken Basin mission, so that could be dropped from the New Frontiers list. If the Lunar Geophysical Network mission is left in the list there are then seven missions on it, which is probably too many. The decadal says:
"Extensive time and resources go into planning and proposing NF missions, and only a relatively small number of concepts can be developed by each of the centers." (22-23)
You could cut the number of missions to five if you dropped the Ceres and Centaur missions added for NF6. However, if that happened then those teams might not get to propose anything before the next Decadal.
-
#116
by
deadman1204
on 06 Aug, 2023 01:49
-
It really doesn't matter, cause this isn't build a NF category. We can only wait and see.
-
#117
by
vjkane
on 06 Aug, 2023 04:52
-
This sounds like a stupid way to run a program.
In my experience, when a system to a manage a program looks stupid, it's often a political compromise. If you are looking for optimization, compromises are almost always inefficient, but they seem to allow us humans to work things out.
I believe that LDEP falls under this heading. If I remember correctly, the primary motivation was to strengthen the commercial space program within an amorphous goal of furthering science and human exploration.
(Another source of stupid ways to run a program is that the program has a historical context that current observers may be unaware of. Yet another source is that sometimes it is just bad decision making.)
-
#118
by
vjkane
on 07 Aug, 2023 14:25
-
I went back to the text of the recent Decadal Survey report and realized that the changes I posted below had a couple of errors and the double columns made it hard to follow.
Here's an updated list of the envisioned New Frontier mission candidate list evolution.
NF 5 (originally to be selected early 2020’s)• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Io Observer
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin (SPA) single location Sample Return
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)
NF 6 (originally to be selected mid 2020’s)Drop mission selected in NF 5
• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
•
Io Observer• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
•
*Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin (SPA) single location Sample Return• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)
Add
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter
*Replaced with Endurance-A sampling rover (directed mission) funded by lunar program
NF 7 (originally to be selected early 2030s)Drop missions selected in NF 5 & 6
• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter
Add
• Triton Ocean World Surveyor
--------------------------------------------------
My speculation is that if new list is drawn up for a single late 2020s selection, there seems to be less excitement for the Saturn probe mission and Venus already was proposed to be dropped by NASA for the next selection.
I think with the Chang'E 6 sample return mission fulfilling many of the goals of the NF SPA basin sample return mission and the expectation of the Endurance rover sample mission, that this candidate mission would be dropped.
If so, that would leave the legacy candidates:
• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
and a list of potential candidate missions blessed by the Decadal Survey mission to be considered for adding:
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter
• Triton Ocean World Surveyor
Betting is open until the actual final list is published.
-
#119
by
redliox
on 07 Aug, 2023 15:15
-
If so, that would leave the legacy candidates:
• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
and a list of potential candidate missions blessed by the Decadal Survey mission to be considered for adding:
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter
• Triton Ocean World Surveyor
Betting is open until the actual final list is published.
What literature or otherwise details do we have on these potential missions? I know I've seen a handful of concepts for Titan and even Triton but I can't say I've heard details on a SR from Ceres.
-
#120
by
ccdengr
on 07 Aug, 2023 15:24
-
What literature or otherwise details do we have on these potential missions? I know I've seen a handful of concepts for Titan and even Triton but I can't say I've heard details on a SR from Ceres.
Did you look at Appendix C in the Decadal Survey, and references from there? E.g., Castillo-Rogez et al., 2020, Ceres: Exploration of Ceres’ Habitability, Mission Concept Study, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. Available at
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/documents
-
#121
by
vjkane
on 07 Aug, 2023 18:13
-
-
#122
by
vjkane
on 08 Aug, 2023 00:43
-
There's a new paper out describing the candidate landing sites for the Chang'e-6 mission to collect samples from the lunar South Pole-Aitken basin. This is the same general region that the candidate NF 5 mission would sample, so the Chinese mission might impact whether the NF mission is retained on the list.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-02038-1I believe this is publicly available (my system may be logged into my university account, which allows me to open it if it's not).
Here is the abstract:
Landing site of the Chang’e-6 lunar farside sample return mission from the Apollo basin
To address questions about the multiple lunar nearside–farside dichotomies and to provide new insights into both the early impact history of the Solar System and the geological evolution of the Moon, the Chang’e-6 (CE-6) landing zone has been selected to lie within the lunar farside South Pole–Aitken (SPA) basin in the southern part of the Apollo basin (150–158° W, 41–45° S), a site that provides access to a diversity of SPA material. Here, we describe the geomorphology, geology and chronology of three candidate sampling sites within this zone that are likely to ensure safe landing and sampling. The geological characteristics indicate that CE-6 is expected to collect lunar farside SPA ejecta fragments, possible mantle material and young (roughly 2.40 Gyr-year-old) and/or old (roughly 3.43 Gyr-year-old) basaltic material, all of which will provide important guidance for future in situ farside sample collection and deepen our understanding of the evolution of the Moon.
-
#123
by
Don2
on 08 Aug, 2023 09:18
-
This sounds like a stupid way to run a program.
In my experience, when a system to a manage a program looks stupid, it's often a political compromise. If you are looking for optimization, compromises are almost always inefficient, but they seem to allow us humans to work things out.
I believe that LDEP falls under this heading. If I remember correctly, the primary motivation was to strengthen the commercial space program within an amorphous goal of furthering science and human exploration.
I'm sure you are right. The point should be made to Congress that lower budgets means that some goals need to be abandoned. Cutting the commercialization goals out of LDEP would allow for fixing the management structure. The program could then narrowly focus on building rovers to work together with Artemis. A more science focused LDEP could then take the load off of New Frontiers.
Enough CLPS landings have been funded to find out if the approach is a good one or not. Budget cuts mean that NASA can no longer afford to subsidize a commercial lunar lander industry.
If a good contractor emerges from CLPS, and if they slash the cost of landing on the moon, then they might be able to reduce the cost of deploying Lunar Geophysical Network to Discovery program levels. Artemis landings can also deploy some geophysical stations.
-
#124
by
deadman1204
on 08 Aug, 2023 14:29
-
This sounds like a stupid way to run a program.
In my experience, when a system to a manage a program looks stupid, it's often a political compromise. If you are looking for optimization, compromises are almost always inefficient, but they seem to allow us humans to work things out.
I believe that LDEP falls under this heading. If I remember correctly, the primary motivation was to strengthen the commercial space program within an amorphous goal of furthering science and human exploration.
I'm sure you are right. The point should be made to Congress that lower budgets means that some goals need to be abandoned. Cutting the commercialization goals out of LDEP would allow for fixing the management structure. The program could then narrowly focus on building rovers to work together with Artemis. A more science focused LDEP could then take the load off of New Frontiers.
Enough CLPS landings have been funded to find out if the approach is a good one or not. Budget cuts mean that NASA can no longer afford to subsidize a commercial lunar lander industry.
If a good contractor emerges from CLPS, and if they slash the cost of landing on the moon, then they might be able to reduce the cost of deploying Lunar Geophysical Network to Discovery program levels. Artemis landings can also deploy some geophysical stations.
CLPS might be one giant disaster. Its unknown if any of these commercial landers will work. They have a lower likelyhood because they are trying to turn a profit, not simply create a lander.
I hope they work, but didn't Zerbuchen say something like 50% success was his goal?
-
#125
by
vjkane
on 08 Aug, 2023 17:44
-
CLPS might be one giant disaster. Its unknown if any of these commercial landers will work. They have a lower likelyhood because they are trying to turn a profit, not simply create a lander.
I hope they work, but didn't Zerbuchen say something like 50% success was his goal?
This Israeli and Indian experiences show how hard this is.
I'm most concerned about Viper - nice rover and mission, but it will be landed on a novel platform by a commercial vendor. We shall see.
-
#126
by
Blackstar
on 08 Aug, 2023 22:45
-
Is there a CLPS thread? Should there be one?
-
#127
by
AnalogMan
on 08 Aug, 2023 23:04
-
-
#128
by
vjkane
on 24 Aug, 2023 16:56
-
Seventh Community Announcement: Advance Notice Regarding Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (AO)
SAM.gov Special Notice ID Number: NNH20ZDA016L
Draft AO Text NNH23ZDA006J Released…...January 10, 2023
NNH23ZDA006J Comments Due……………..March 03, 2023
Estimated Release of final AO………………...No earlier than 2026 (target)
Estimated Proposal due date………………….90 days after AO release
This community announcement (CA) is the seventh in a series to provide an advance notice of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plan to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit New Frontiers Program mission investigations. The New Frontiers Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD’s planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap for the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC). Budget uncertainty in the Planetary Science Division (PSD) makes release of the AO in 2023 and subsequent selection of a new mission difficult, and this seventh NF5 CA shares the decision reached by NASA to delay the release of the AO.
NASA SMD’s new target is no earlier than 2026 for the release of the final AO. This is a delay of approximately three years compared to the November 2023 target date announced in an early communication.
The schedule delay is significant enough that NASA plans to ask the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science to provide a recommendation on which mission themes from the NF5 and NF6 lists should be included in the AO. This also provides an opportunity to update the science objectives for the mission themes based on the recently released planetary decadal survey, “Original, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032.”
[emphasis added by poster]
All feedback already provided in response to that draft AO will feed into development of the AO targeted for release no earlier than 2026. In order to assist proposers, NASA plans to share the major policies for the next AO approximately 18 months before the targeted release of the AO.
NASA has not approved the issuance of the New Frontiers 5 AO. This CA does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in anticipation of the final New Frontiers 5 AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk.
Further information will be posted when it is available on the New Frontiers Program Acquisition Website hosted by the Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) at
https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/. For example, In May 2023 SOMA added the New Frontiers V Announcement of Opportunity (AO) LAUNCH SERVICES PROGRAM INFORMATION SUMMARY dated 3/24/2023 to the Program library. Questions and feedback may be emailed using “7th CA for NF5” in the subject line to Dr. Curt Niebur, the New Frontiers Program Lead Scientist, via
[email protected].
-
#129
by
VSECOTSPE
on 29 Aug, 2023 01:41
-
-
#130
by
Blackstar
on 24 Oct, 2023 16:50
-
In response to a question about Discovery vs. New Frontiers, Lori Glaze said that her plan is to do NF before Discovery, because NF has been delayed and they really need to do one. She also nixed the idea of doing them simultaneously, even if budget is available. The reason is that the centers don't have enough people and resources to prepare their bids simultaneously. (There was some related question about centers being allowed to compete that I missed a few seconds of, so I didn't understand her answer.)
She also said that maybe in spring NASA will ask the CAPS committee to evaluate NF5. This was, I think, mentioned up-thread here.
-
#131
by
vjkane
on 26 Oct, 2023 14:45
-
Moderators: Because NASA's administrators will be considering the phasing of the next AO's for New Frontiers and Discovery together, Could the title of this thread be changed to
'New Frontiers 5/Discovery 20'
-
#132
by
vjkane
on 26 Oct, 2023 14:51
-
Another factor affecting the timing of the Discovery 20 AO would be whether to restart VERITAS or not. The community, including CAPS as I recall, has solidly stated that VERITAS should be in development before another Discovery mission is selected.
I missed any of Glaze's comments on VERITAS at CAPS, but in other recent meetings she has said that the earliest this mission could get a restart in FY25, depending on funding and resource availability at JPL, leading to a launch in 2031.
-
#133
by
vjkane
on 26 Oct, 2023 14:57
-
Further down in this thread, one poster speculated that Dragonfly might not have successfully completed its KDP-C review earlier in the summer.
Dr. Glaze stated that the project passed the technical review and has a credible proposed budget. She also stated that that budget is high and stated that the fault is NASA's for having delayed the mission three times to handle other budget issues within the planetary program.
The mission's confirmation hearing is being held up as NASA works to decide on how to handle the Dragonfly budget within a constrained funding environment.
. The main concern being given within the proposal is the weight constraints imposed by trying to fit 4 landers with heavy batteries and an orbiter being too much for a Falcon Heavy to deliver through TLI. 
