-
#120 by ccdengr on 07 Aug, 2023 15:24
-
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
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.
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. Available at https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/documents -
#121 by vjkane on 07 Aug, 2023 18:13
-
Several Decadal mission concept study reports are available here:
https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2632-3338/special/2632-3338_focus_issue_Planetary_Decadal_Mission_Concept_Studies -
#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/s41550-023-02038-1
I 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
-
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.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.
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.
This Israeli and Indian experiences show how hard this is.
I hope they work, but didn't Zerbuchen say something like 50% success was his goal?
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
-
Is there a CLPS thread? Should there be one?
Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45580.0 -
#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
-
Article on announcement directly above:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-confirms-multi-year-delay-in-next-new-frontiers-competition/
(C’mon, Enceladus...) -
#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.