For some reason, this blog has become the target of Indonesian (at least that's the language Google translate says it is) comment spanners. I have turned on comment moderation, but don't seem to be always receiving notifications of a new legitimate comments. I will log in daily to see if there are comments.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
NASA’s managers have begun the process for a competition to select a new planetary mission to launch in the mid-2020s that will address one of the most important questions in planetary science. The winning proposal will be the fourth mission in the agency’s New Frontiers program that sent the New Horizons craft to Pluto, the Juno orbiter to Jupiter, and will launch the OSIRIS-REx mission next month to return a sample from a primitive asteroid.
|Previously selected New Frontiers missions. Credit: NASA|
NASA’s planetary missions fall into three categories of ambition and cost. At the high end at around $2-2.5 billion are the Flagship missions that use highly capable spacecraft for exploration that addresses a wide range of questions at the target world. These missions include the Curiosity Mars rover, its 2020 Mars rover sibling in development, and the planned Europa multi-flyby mission.
At the low end, at around $600 million, are the Discovery missions that conduct highly focused missions. Teams are free to propose missions to study any solar system body except the Sun and Earth (which are studied through other programs at NASA). Ten of these planetary missions have flown successfully and have included the MESSENGER spacecraft that orbited Mercury and the DAWN spacecraft that currently orbits the asteroid Ceres. Next up will be the 2018 InSight geophysical station for Mars to be followed by one or two missions to study either asteroids and/or Venus that will be selected by the end of the year.
At a total cost of somewhere around $1 billion, the New Frontiers missions fit between these two programs in ambition. The goal for these missions are to address focused high priority science questions. The scientific community selects the candidate themes through the Decadal Survey in which a long list of scientist-proposed ideas are vetted and prioritized.
The next New Frontiers mission will be selected from among a list of the six mission themes that the planetary science community identified as as highest priority to answer key questions about our solar system:
- Comet Surface Sample Return – Enable in-depth laboratory analysis of the most primitive material left form the formation of the solar system
- Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return – Enable in-depth laboratory analysis of material from our moon to understand the how the bombardment of the inner solar system worlds by comets and asteroids effected their formation
- Saturn Atmospheric Probe – Determine the composition of Saturn’s atmosphere to help us better understand the formation of the solar system
- Trojan Asteroid Tour and Rendezvous – Explore a reservoir of remnant bodies from the formation of the solar system to understand how materials from different regions of the early solar system mixed during planetary formation
- Venus In Situ Explorer – Understand the formation, evolution, and current state of the atmosphere and surface of our sister world that evolved into a hell
- Ocean Worlds (Titan and/or Enceladus) – Do these two moons of Saturn have the conditions to support life and is life present?
The first five of these themes were selected through the Decadal Survey. NASA’s managers added the Ocean Worlds theme in response to a Congressional directive and further discoveries by the Cassini mission. For the next, fifth New Frontiers competition, Jupiter’s moon Io and a lunar geophysical network theme will be added.
NASA’s managers currently expect to select a New Frontiers mission from the list of themes approximately every five years. At that pace, completing this series of investigations, including the new themes for the next selection, will require around forty years (assuming no changes to the list from future Decadal Surveys). The pressure on each proposing team to have their proposal selected now rather than waiting decades must be intense. (If this long time frame seems disheartening, some of the themes may be addressed by other space agencies. A European team, for example, is proposing a Saturn atmospheric probe to the European Space Agency. NASA Discovery missions may also partially address some of the themes. Among the five proposals competing to be among the next Discovery missions are spacecraft that would address several of the atmospheric objectives of the Venus theme and address the Trojan theme through flybys rather than the proposed New Frontiers orbiter plus flybys approach.)
For some of the themes, the Decadal Survey listed (and NASA’s managers have adopted) very specific research goals. Any team proposing a mission for the Venus in situ explorer, for example, must propose a probe that would descend through the atmosphere and likely land on the surface. Here are the objectives from the draft document announcing NASA’s request for proposals (called an Announcement of Opportunity (AO)):
The Venus In Situ Explorer mission theme is focused on examining the physics and chemistry of Venus’s atmosphere and crust by characterizing variables that cannot be measured from orbit, including the detailed composition of the lower atmosphere, and the elemental and mineralogical composition of surface materials. The science objectives (listed without priority) of this mission theme are:
- Understand the physics and chemistry of Venus’s atmosphere through measurement of its composition, especially the abundances of sulfur, trace gases, light stable isotopes, and noble-gas isotopes;
- Constrain the coupling of thermochemical, photochemical, and dynamical processes in Venus’s atmosphere and between the surface and atmosphere to understand radiative balance, climate, dynamics, and chemical cycles;
- Understand the physics and chemistry of Venus’s crust;
- Understand the properties of Venus’s atmosphere down to the surface and improve understanding of Venus’s zonal cloud-level winds;
- Understand the weathering environment of the crust of Venus in the context of the dynamics of the atmosphere of Venus and the composition and texture of its surface materials; and
- Search for evidence of past hydrological cycles, oceans, and life and constraints on the evolution of Venus’s atmosphere.
This is an ambitious list, and the AO specifically states that proposers can select, but must thoroughly justify their selection, a subset of these goals.
By contrast, the goals for the Trojan asteroid tour and rendezvous reflect the fact that we know very little about these never-visited bodies that share Jupiter’s orbit. This population of small worlds represent fragments left over from the formation of the planets. The diversity of the composition of these worlds will allow scientists to select from among competing models for how the solar system formed. The requirements for this theme are short:
The Trojan Tour and Rendezvous mission theme is intended to examine two or more small bodies sharing the orbit of Jupiter, including one or more flybys followed by an extended rendezvous with a Trojan object. The science objective of this mission theme is:
- · Visit, observe, and characterize multiple Trojan asteroids
The briefness of the requirements for the Trojan theme likely makes life harder for teams proposing a mission to these worlds. In judging proposals, NASA’s review teams will score proposals on their scientific merit (~40% of score), the feasibility of the specific proposed instruments and measurements (~30%), and overall mission feasibility within the cost cap (~30%). Scientific merit includes an explanation of the, “Compelling nature and scientific priority of the proposed investigation's science goals and objectives. This factor includes the clarity of the goals and objectives…” Teams proposing for Venus have the benefit of goals developed and specified by the Venus science community while teams proposing for the Trojans have to develop and defend their own list of specific science goals and objectives.
(At the end of this post, I’ve copied the specific goals for the remaining mission themes from the AO.)
Missions proposed for the next New Frontiers program will need to meet many criteria including these:
- Total cost for the development of the spacecraft, the instruments, and analysis of the returned data cannot exceed $850 million. NASA will separately pay for the mission’s launch and operation costs while in flight (likely several tens of millions of dollars per year), which together probably will bring the total cost of the mission to $1 billion or more.
- Proposals can include instruments paid for by foreign governments, but the costs of these instruments cannot exceed one-third of the cost of the total instrument compliment. As one NASA manager put it, NASA invests a great deal of money to develop instrument technologies by American scientists, and it wants to see a return on that investment by having the majority of instruments on the selected mission be American.
- Teams can propose the use of radioisotope heaters and radioisotope electrical power generators for their missions. These units would be useful for missions operating far from the sun (for example, at Saturn). However, a mission using these units would need to reserve a substantial portion of the core $850 million to cover the cost of these units. Using just the heaters would incur a cost of $47-79 million (depending on the number) and the electrical power generators would cost $133-195 million (again based on the number of generators used). These costs could drastically reduce the capabilities of the spacecraft and instruments compared to missions that don’t require these technologies.
I suspect that for many readers of this blog, a mission to return to Enceladus or Titan to continue their exploration with a new generation of spacecraft and instruments would be a personal favorite. I share that desire, but also recognize the challenges any proposal to these worlds would face. First, these worlds were just added to the list of candidate themes in the past few months. The in-depth analysis of objectives for these missions is just getting underway by the scientific community. Second, the technical maturity of instruments to explore their oceans, determine their habitability, and search for life may be low – NASA has not made major investments in these technologies for these worlds (but plans to begin to do so). And third, these missions are likely to need radioisotope power generators and their cost would eat significantly into the mission budget, potentially making it less competitive. (Solar powered missions are possible at Saturn, but appear to be on the edge technically. This could make a proposal that depends on solar power appear technically risky.) Balancing these negatives is a heritage of three Discovery-class proposals to these worlds that were not selected but which could form the basis of a New Frontiers-class mission. Still, I personally doubt that a mission to these moons will be selected this time. (If I am wrong, given a mid-2020’s launch and a flight that could last 10 years, it could be the mid-2030s before the spacecraft arrives at its target.)
I’ve learned to not try to predict which Discovery or New Frontiers mission is likely to be selected from the list of proposals made. The scrutiny given these proposals is intense. Any fault with the details of a proposal can rule it out. If the review panel decides that a proposed key engineering manager doesn’t have sufficient experience, that could kill a proposal. If the review panel concludes that a technology proposed to be used for the spacecraft or a key instrument lacks maturity, that could kill a proposal. If the review panel concludes that the specific set of scientific objectives proposed are not as compelling as for other proposals, that could kill a proposal. No matter how sexy a proposal might look from the limited information that we in the general public get to see, faults in the details that we never see may rule it out.
However, we need to remember that all the candidate themes for the upcoming selection of the fourth New Frontiers mission represent questions deemed to be among the highest priority for exploring the solar system. Whichever mission is finally selected will significantly expand our understanding of the solar system.
Schedule for the next New Frontiers competition and launch:
- Final AO Release Date -- January 2017 (target)
- Deadline for Receipt of Proposals -- AO Release + 3 months + 4 days
- Selection of a subset (historically, two) of proposals for further study -- November 2017 (AO release + 10 months)
- Final selection -- July 2019 (target)
- Launch -- December 31, 2024 if solar powered or December 31, 2025 if radioisotope power sources are required
- Flight time to the target world: Days (the moon), months (Venus), years to a decade or more (comet with Earth return, Saturn, or Trojan asteroids)
Science goals for the remaining mission themes (goals for the Venus and Trojan asteroid themes listed above):
The Comet Surface Sample Return mission theme is focused on acquiring and returning to Earth a macroscopic sample from the surface of a comet nucleus using a sampling technique that preserves organic material in the sample. The mission theme would also use additional instrumentation on the spacecraft to determine the geologic and geomorphologic context of the sampled region. Because of the increasingly blurred distinction between comets and the most primitive asteroids, many important objectives of an asteroid sample return mission could also be accomplished by this mission. The science objectives (listed without priority) of this mission theme are.
• Acquire and return to Earth for laboratory analysis a macroscopic comet nucleus surface sample;
• Characterize the surface region sampled; and
• Preserve sample complex organics.
The Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return mission theme is focused on returning samples from this ancient and deeply excavated impact basin to Earth for characterization and study. In addition to returning samples, this mission would also document the geologic context of the landing site. The science objectives (listed without priority) of this mission theme are:
• Elucidate the nature of the Moon’s lower crust and/or mantle by direct measurements of its composition and of sample ages;
• Determine the chronology of basin-forming impacts and constrain the period of late, heavy bombardment in the inner solar system, and thus, address fundamental questions of inner solar system impact processes and chronology;
• Characterize a large lunar impact basin through “ground truth” validation of global, regional, and local remotely sensed data of the sampled site;
• Elucidate the sources of thorium and other heat-producing elements to understand lunar differentiation and thermal evolution; and
• Determine the age and composition of farside basalts to determine how mantle source regions on the Moon’s farside differ from the basalts from regions sampled by Apollo and Luna
The Ocean Worlds mission theme is focused on the search for signs of extant life and/or characterizing the potential habitability of Titan and/or Enceladus. For Enceladus, the science objectives (listed without priority) of this mission theme are:
• Assess the habitability of Enceladus’ ocean; and
• Search for signs of biosignatures and/or evidence of extant life.
For Titan, the science objectives (listed without priority) of the Ocean Worlds mission theme are:
• Understand the organic and methanogenic cycle on Titan, especially as it relates to prebiotic chemistry; and
• Investigate the subsurface ocean and/or liquid reservoirs, particularly their evolution and possible interaction with the surface.
The Saturn Probe mission theme is intended to deploy one or more probes into Saturn’s atmosphere to directly determine the structure of the atmosphere as well as noble gas abundances and isotopic ratios of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. The science objectives (listed without priority) of this mission theme are:
• Determine noble gas abundances and isotopic ratios of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in Saturn’s atmosphere; and
• Determine the atmospheric structure at the probe descent location.
Monday, June 6, 2016
A few weeks ago, as I’m sure most people reading this blog know, Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX announced plans to land their Dragon spacecraft, largely at the company’s expense, on Mars. While this plan is audacious enough, Musk has previously positioned SpaceX’s Dragon capsule as an all-purpose lander suitable to explore almost the entire solar system.
Since Musk’s announcement, I’ve been doing research and thinking about what the availability of a commercial planetary lander might mean for planetary exploration. Even if landing the company’s Dragon spacecraft on Mars proves to be a one-time event, it will demonstrate that the technologies for planetary missions have become widely available.
What if, though, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft becomes a standard catalog item that could ordered, the way a launch vehicle is? What might the impact be on planetary exploration? As I thought about this, I concluded that three questions are key: How flexible will the Dragon spacecraft be as a payload delivery vehicle? How far afield can it operate in the solar system without design changes so massive that it becomes necessary to essentially redesign it? And how will be missions it might fly be paid for?
|Mock up of the Dragon version 2 capsule for Earth orbital missions. Credit SpaceX.|
Designing a craft for interplanetary flight requires numerous differences from a craft designed to operate in low Earth orbit for short periods of time and then return to our world. Systems must be able to function for months to years. Electronics must be able to function in the harsher radiation environment outside the Earth’s magnetosphere. The communications system must be able to transmit and receive data over distances of hundreds of millions of kilometers. There will be hours to days between communications periods, requiring the craft to be able to operate autonomously.
|Artist's conception of the Red Dragon capsule on the surface of Mars. Credit: SpaceX.|
To operate as a long-lived lander on the surface of a planet, the spacecraft must deploy solar panels to generate power after touch down. (I’ve not heard of any plans to use plutonium-based power generators for the Dragon spacecraft.) Batteries must be carried and recharged to keep the spacecraft operating during the night. And especially on frigid Mars, the spacecraft will need insulation and heaters to keep it warm.
These problems are well known, and we can presume that SpaceX’s engineers have designed the Dragon spacecraft and their subsystems with these issues in mind. It’s worth pausing for a moment to consider the kind of commitment this implies to SpaceX’s commitment to revolutionize Martian exploration because these enhancements likely aren’t cheap.
By making these investments in the basic Dragon spacecraft design, referred to as the Red Dragon for Mars missions, SpaceX can take advantage of what is likely to be a low volume assembly line building these craft. While NASA has designs of its own it can reuse to land on Mars, flights are likely to be infrequent enough that their components may gradually become obsolete and the expertise to rebuild and test them may fade. SpaceX presumably will be building several Dragon spacecraft a decade, allowing it to gradually update the design and keep its expertise intact. The result will likely be a lander that may be substantially cheaper than NASA reusing its existing designs for some Mars missions.
How Flexible is the Interplanetary Dragon Lander?
I know of two proposals for scientific missions that would use the Red Dragon spacecraft. One, IceBreaker, led by NASA’s Chris McKay would return to the northern polar plains of Mars to further investigate the subsurface ices found there for habitability and signs of life. The appeal of the Dragon spacecraft appears to have been its expected low cost. McKay has also proposed the IceBreaker mission using a near copy of the much smaller NASA Phoenix and InSight landers. The instruments would have weighed a few tens of kilograms, barely taking advantage of the payload that the Red Dragon could deliver. The Dragon lander (dubbed the IceDragon for this concept), however, could have carried a much larger drill than the Phoenix-derived lander, allowing samples to be collected from much further below the surface. (The one published abstract for the IceDragon mission from several years ago proposed a 2 meter drill. Technology development since then might allow much deeper drilling.)
|Conceptual design for the IceDragon version of the Red Dragon capsule that could be sent to sample the icy plains of Mars' arctic regions. Human figure shown for scale. Credit: NASA.|
The second proposal would be to use the Dragon spacecraft to deliver a launch vehicle to return samples directly from the surface of Mars to the Earth. This concept takes full advantage of the payload mass and volume offered by the Dragon. Other concepts proposed to return samples to Earth envision two missions. The first would land on Mars and launch a sample canister into Martian orbit. The second would retrieve the canister and perform the voyage to Earth. The large ascent vehicle enabled by the Dragon would, the proposers argue, combine these two functions to lower costs, complexity, and risk.
Unfortunately, this proposal requires that a rover already be on Mars that could deliver a canister with samples to the Dragon spacecraft. While NASA’s planned 2020 Mars rover will collect samples, it will leave them on the surface for a later rover to collect and return to an ascent vehicle. There isn’t the payload mass for the proposed Dragon mission to carry its own fetch rover and a direct-to-Earth ascent return vehicle, although it could launch samples into Martian orbit if it has to carry its own fetch rover according to the proposers.
|Conceptual design for the Red Dragon used to carry a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV). Credit: NASA.|
There’s much we don’t know about the Red Dragon design. Will it be suited only to missions where the scientific investigations are limited to the immediate landing site where robotic arms could reach such as these two proposals? That would suggest missions to locations where homogenous conditions exist over large areas such as the polar plains of Mars.
A variation of the proposal to use the Dragon design to return samples from Mars would be to use it to return samples from different regions of the moon or from some of the larger asteroids. Since the scientists proposing lunar sample returns are interested in broad regional differences in composition, grabbing samples with an arm in the immediate vicinity of the lander would meet their goals.
However, many of the goals for lunar and Martian exploration require rovers that can reach and study or sample multiple locations across within a much larger study area. I have not seen any analysis about whether delivering a capable rover would be a feasible extension of the Red Dragon’s design. Could the Dragon design host a moderately large rover (smaller than the Curiosity rover but perhaps bigger than the Opportunity rover) and deploy it to the surface by including a large hatch and a ramp or crane?
NASA already has two current, proven designs for Martian landers. The first, used for the Phoenix and InSight missions, delivers a few tens of kilograms of instruments using a small, stationary lander. The key advantage of this platform is that it provides a soft landing, and its low stature provides easy access to the surface. The second system used parachutes and a rocket-powered skycrane to deliver the Curiosity rover to the surface (and the design will be reused for the 2020 rover). It also places up to 930 kilograms of rover directly on the surface, eliminating the need for ramps to get the rover off the lander. The landing system is also designed with the myriad of safety requirements needed for a rover/lander to use a plutonium power supply.
The Red Dragon will be able to deliver a slightly more massive payload, about 1000 kilograms. While the payload space appears large by the standards of most planetary landers, it doesn’t appear large enough to carry a duplicate of the Curiosity rover. Unlike the skycrane landing system, the payload will sit inside a large spacecraft, well above the ground. Long robotic arms or drills would be needed to bring surface samples to instruments inside the spacecraft or place small instruments on the surface. Delivering a large package such as a rover to the surface would require ramps or a crane. I expect that these problems are solvable, but they create a level of complexity that NASA’s skycrane system was invented to avoid.
Beyond the Moon and Mars
Musk’s claim appears to touch on three separate issues. The first is whether the Falcon Heavy could propel a Dragon spacecraft to any location in the solar system. The answer likely is yes. For our moon, Mars, and Venus, the launcher will be able to send the Dragon directly to these worlds. If the Falcon Heavy cannot send a Dragon directly to Mercury or the outer planets, it certainly could launch it on a trajectory that would use Venus and/or Earth gravity assists to provide the additional velocity needed.
The second issue is whether the Dragon could land on these more distant worlds, which breaks into two parts. The first is how the Dragon capsule would kill the high approach velocity when it reaches its destination. The atmospheres of Mars, Venus, and Titan can kill much of the speed. It’s less clear to me whether the Dragon spacecraft would carry enough fuel to first brake into, say, Jovian orbit and then kill the remaining velocity to land on Europa. (A direct landing on Europa without entering Jovian orbit also would need to kill a lot of speed.) Musk’s statements suggest it could, but for now we lack details.
The third issue is whether the Dragon spacecraft could deal with the special environmental issues at various worlds. The moon and Mars are reasonably straightforward challenges both because of their proximity and their comparatively (for planetary destinations) benign environments. By contrast, while the Mercurian poles are cool, the spacecraft would need to deal with intense solar heating on the way to this world. The surface of Venus is intensely hot and has a crushing atmospheric surface pressure. Jupiter’s moon Europa sits deep within an intense, electronics frying, radiation belt. Titan’s surface is as bitterly cold as Venus’ is broiling. Landing on a small asteroid or comet may require special adaptations such as harpoons to hold the capsule on the surface. Traveling to any world beyond Jupiter will require a radioisotope generator for power (Saturn might be an exception).
It is possible to design spacecraft to handle any of these challenges. Missions have been proposed to land on each of these worlds, but using custom designs that take into account the unique challenges of each environments. Would it be cost effective to modify the Dragon spacecraft to handle the challenges of any of these worlds, or more cost effective to design a custom spacecraft?
There’s also the question of whether a prior scouting mission would be needed. For the moon and for high priority locations on Mars, existing high resolution images would allow mission planners to identify precise locations of safe terrain within otherwise rugged but scientifically interesting terrains. The same will be true for selected sites on Europa following NASA’s planned Europa Multiple Flyby mission. What about a world with only coarse resolution mapping or none at all?
|Example of the rugged terrain the salt deposits of Ceres are found on. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA.|
As a thought experiment, I considered a Dragon mission to land on the asteroid Ceres to explore the salts on the surface that have erupted from a likely (now frozen?) subterranean ocean. We have moderate resolution (35 meters) images of the surface from the Dawn spacecraft currently orbiting that world. The images of the terrain where the exposed salts are found that I’ve seen, however, appear quite rugged at 35 m resolution. And a lot of lander-killing ruggedness can hide within that scale of resolution. For assessing a potential Martian landing site, by comparison, NASA likes to have images with sub-meter resolution.
I’m sure that the Dragon capsule or its service module could physically carry a high resolution camera to scout for safe landing sites. But would the spacecraft have the precise pointing capability to accurately aim the camera and the stability to prevent image jitter? Again, solutions to these problems are well known, but is this something that would have to be added to the Dragon spacecraft?
Who Will Pay for Interplanetary Dragon Missions?
Until we know more about the capabilities of the Red Dragon capsule, it is hard to know what its advantages and disadvantages will be compared to existing lander designs. It may provide a significant cost advantage – remember that likely assembly line of Dragon spacecraft. However, the lander hardware is just one part of the cost of a mission. There is still the cost of the launch, the instruments, potentially a rover or a launch vehicle for sample return, and operations.
Even if the cost of a Red Dragon landing were free, these other costs would drive the total mission costs to several hundred millions of dollars. This puts a Red Dragon-based mission in competition for funding with all the other missions planetary scientists would like to conduct. A lunar or Martian landing mission may be selected by NASA only once a decade, and the Red Dragon may or may not be the most suitable design.
As an alternative, perhaps SpaceX will schedule a Martian landing every two years or so and will sell payload space to space agencies, universities, and even private companies to cover costs. Then the cost to any individual space agency, university research group, or company might be relatively small – a few million or tens of millions of dollars.
Or Musk may use the profits from SpaceX or a portion of his personal fortune to drive his own program of Mars robotic exploration. From his statements we know he wants to eventually take humans to Mars. Perhaps Red Dragon is a stepping stone to that grander vision.
Red Dragon is possible because of the vision and drive of its founder, Elon Musk. He made a strategic decision to build a capsule that could land on Mars as well as meet NASA’s needs in near Earth orbit. We will need to wait to learn what types of landed missions that vision will encompass and which worlds beyond Mars Musk wants to explore.