Update on NASA's Planetary Program

The Venus (VEXAG), Mars (MEPAG), outer planets (OPAG), and small bodies (SBAG) assessment groups all met in the last month.  This kind of concurrency in these meetings is unusual and presents an opportunity to provide an update on future missions across the entire range of solar system (ex the sun itself).  What follows are key tidbits gleaned from the presentations that have been posted on the web (see below for links).

Steven Squyres presented an update on the Decadal Survey at the MEPAG meeting.  Squyres reported that the first draft of the report and recommendations has been written an submitted for review.  To quote directly from his presentation:

(Editorial note: My take on the "highly restricted" and "tough choices" is that one of the two flagship class missions widely discussed -- the MAX-C Martian rover and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter -- may not be recommended.  If so, I'd place my bet on a Martian rover being recommended.  To not do so would effectively end a very successful two decades of Martian exploration and lead to JPL losing the expertise it's built up on Martian entry, landing, and descent and rover technology.)

The first public release of the Survey's recommendations and report will occur at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference next March 7-11.

While not in the presentations, NASA does not have an approved budget for FY11, which began on October 1.  Congress is late with almost all appropriation bills this year, leaving NASA to operate on a continuing resolution.  Frequently when this happens, a large number of agencies receive their final budgets as part of an omnibus bill.  Usually, the new budget ends up looking much like the previous year's budget since there is not the time to consider each agency in detail.  For planetary explortion, this could represent a loss of the substantial budget increase (~11%) in the President's proposal submitted to Congress earlier this year.  Carried forward through the next decade, this increase could almost pay for an additional New Frontiers mission.  (You may have heard that Congress recently approved NASA's "budget."  This was actually an authorization bill, which is a policy statement on Congress' goals for the agency, which is critical given the changes in the manned spaceflight program this year.  Funds are actually appropriated in seperate spending bills.)

Funding for the restart of plutonium-238 was requested in the President's budget proposal, with costs to be equally shared by NASA and the Department of Energy (DoE).  The Senate's version of the DoE budget would require NASA to carry the entire $75-90 M cost.  If the eventual Congressional appropriation goes with the recommendation, NASA looking to cover the entire cost out of its budget, but "significant impact to several programs will be felt."

NASA continues to move forward to enable the Jupiter Europa Orbiter if it is recommended by the Decadal Survey.  The radiation and planetary protection concerns (the spacecraft would eventually crash into the surface of Europa, and NASA doesn't want to contaminate it with Earth organisms) makes instrument designs especially challenging.  In an unusual step, NASA will hold a two stage selection for instruments.  In the first stage, it will select two or more concepts proposed by researchers for each instrument category.  Those concepts will then receive funding for end-depth design work leading to a final selection.

NASA received several dozen proposals to consider for its next Discovery mission selection, indicating that the scientific community is not running out of ideas for relatively low cost missions.

Jim Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division included a list of upcoming events in his presentations to the different meetings (the OPAG version is given below).  Interestingly, the OPAG version suggests that the Opportunity rover will reach Endeavour crater early 2012 while the VEXAG version suggests that the arrival will be in mid-2011.

Links to meeting presentations:

OPAG

MEPAG

VEXAG

SBAG

As an additional note, China launched its second lunar mission yesterday.  Per a SpaceDaily article, China hopes to achieve its first robotic lunar landing in 2013 and a sample return in 2017.

Robotic Precursor Missions

In a previous blog entry (Robotic Precusor Missions), I described a proposed new NASA initiative in the manned exploration program to develop key technologies and scout future locations for manned exploration.  At that time, the program was pretty sketchy.  NASA just held a conference on this program that begins to fill in the blanks.  I want to emphasize, however, that the presentations are full of disclaimers stating that these are early plans likely to change.  Congress also has to go along with the Administration's proposal and fund the programs, which is anything but certain.

(All illustrations except the budget projection are from FY 2011 Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions (xPRM) Point of Departure Plans)

If these programs are funded, they would be great news for planetary exploration.  The entire program has many parts, and the full picture is too complex to describe here. Most of the programs are specific to manned spaceflight capabilities to reach near Earth asteroids and Mars.  Two programs, however, directly bear on unmanned planetary exploration.  This post will focus on the Robotic missions, and a subsequent post will focus on the technology development missions.

The role of the Robotic missions is to scout ahead of human exploration.  To provide an analogy, the Apollo missions to the moon had the robotic Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiters that scouted the terrain and provided essential information prior to human flights as well as fundamental scientific exploration.  The in-progress Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the recently completed LCROSS missions are modern versions of the same idea.  NASA is proposing a series of missions in the $500-800M range that would scout near Earth asteroids, the moon, and Mars.  This budget figure, which would include the launch vehicle, puts these missions in the class of Discovery missions.  (The fully burdened cost of each Discovery mission appears to be about $800M, with ~$450M going to the PI for spacecraft and instruments.)

Projected spending on precursor missions based on FY11 NASA budget proposal projections

The mission profiles and instruments would be selected to answer key questions relevant to human missions.  Is the surface safe to land on?  Are there hazardous substances?  Can we find resources to use?  The missions that can answer questions like these can also provide good science and good vicarious armchair exploration.

The robotic precursor program appears to be quite ambitious.  In addition to the major missions, several Scout missions costing less than $200M would also be flown.  The presentation is vague about what these missions might do.  The program would also fund individual instruments on scientific missions to make instruments useful for planning manned missions.

Example of how an investigation can approached from both the perspective of a precursor and a scientific mission.  In many cases, the data collected for one will inform the other.

Current roadmap of precursor missions.  xPRP missions would be $500-800M, MOOs are missions of opportunities that would usually pay to place an additional instrument on a science mission, and xScouts are small missions $100-200M in cost.

The slide above provides the current strawman list of missions under consideration.  Here, I’ll expand on a couple of the missions.  The 2014 near Earth asteroid mission would characterize one of these objects in terms of hazards, proximity operation conditions, and resources.  The instrument list, though, reads like that of a scientific mission: sub-meter pixel imaging, LiDAR for topography, instrument(s) for compositional mapping, and radar for subsurface structural mapping.  The mission would end with the spacecraft landing on the asteroid.

The 2016 Mars orbiter would leave for the Red Planet the same year as the Mars Trace Gas science orbiter.  While the MTG orbiter would focus on atmospheric composition and dynamics, the precursor mission would focus on radiation hazards, near surface ice detection, potential landing site imaging, and radar imaging to peer beneath the surface dust.  While these measurements would be essential to planning an eventual manned mission, all (except perhaps the in orbit radiation instrument) would address questions that have high scientific value for understanding Mars.

Additional large xPRP missions in the strawman roadmap include:

• 2015: Teleoperated Lunar Lander in a sunlit polar region and enhanced hydrogen signature to explore resources, hazards, and mission operations.  Would include a Sojourner class rover.  (Noted as being aggressive for budget allocation.)
• 2018: Mars lander with a MER class rover with instruments to investigate human safety issues.
• 2019: Near Earth Asteroid mission that is still to be defined but has a goal of including 3-6 spacecraft to explore multiple targets

Editorial Thoughts: If these missions fly, they would constitute a major program of scientific exploration.  While no total budget is given, a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that the program might be as large as $5B, or a little less than half the budget of the scientific planetary program. I suspect that the program is too ambitious for the projected budget.  The lunar and Mars landers, for example, have the feeling of a New Frontiers class mission (>$1B with all costs included) rather than a Discovery class mission.  I personally am most intrigued by the possibility of sending multiple smaller spacecraft to explore multiple near Earth asteroids and by the Mars orbiter.  I suspect that others would find the two landers more intriguing.

The cynic in me, though, is skeptical.  This program depends on the Obama administration’s proposed changes to the manned space program being accepted and funded by Congress.  Right now, Congress seems to be somewhere between doubtful and hostile to the proposed program changes.  It is possible that the Administration and Congress will compromise and keep elements of the old and new manned programs.  New programs such as these precursor missions that don’t have established political constituencies and don’t keep existing workforces employed may not fare well.

I hope that I am wrong, but I will not get excited until I see these programs progress to hardware being built.

Why I Favor EJSM and Focused Exploration

As with all my editorials, I am not trying to convince anyone to my point of view.  No one on the Decadal Survey has ever heard of me, and my opinion counts for no more than any of the readers of this blog.  Rather, I find that reading a good editorial (and I hope my efforts are 'good') helps me focus my own thinking and reach my own conclusions.  So, with that in mind, here is one of the rare editorials on this blog.

In the next few months, the Decadal Survey will have to select missions to recommend for flight in the coming decade (2013-2022).  We have already been warned that sticker shock is coming and that fewer missions can be flown than advocates and scientists would hope.  At $3.2B and perhaps $4B with inflation and cost increases, the Jupiter Europa Orbiter would consume a substantial chunk of that ~$12-13B budget.  (ESA's Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter, if selected, would be paid for out of Europe's budget for its next large science mission.)  Perhaps most damning, funding EJSM would preclude funding for a flagship mission to Titan and Enceladus. 

My first reason for favoring EJSM is that it would explore three classes of important objects: (1) icy moons that may be habitats of life either in our solar system or others, (2) a large gas giant that is our best analogue for the many gas giants found around other stars, and (3) an intense magnetospheres that serves as a surrogate for other such structures in the universe.  The last two points speak for themselves, but I will expand a bit on the first point.  I believe that the ultimate exploration of an icy moon environment will be at Titan, but that world has such active surface processes that untangling its geologic history will prove difficult.  At Jupiter, we have four moons that provide case studies a range of tidally influenced moons (with Io and Callisto at the extremes) without the confusion of active surface processes.  Finally, Europa may be a habitat for life, and we should explore that potential with a highly capable spacecraft.

My second reason for favoring EJSM is that the JEO mission is ready to fly.  A decade of technology development and mission design has brought the mission to a point where risks are low.  We learned last year in the shoot out between EJSM and the Saturn Titan System Mission (TSSM) that the same was not true for concepts to explore the Saturn system (click here for the orbiter and here for the in situ elements). 

My final reason for favoring EJSM is the lesson learned from Mars exploration in the last decade.  At the Red Planet, we have learned that a series of highly capable missions can together bring a deep insight into a world or, in the case of Jupiter, a system of worlds.  NASA's JEO could be just the most capable of a fleet of craft that could also include ESA's Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter, Japan's magnetosphere orbiter, Russia's Europa lander, and possibly penetrators for Ganymede and/or Europa from another space agency.  Together, this flotilla would do for the Jovian system what a decade of missions have done for Mars.  What we learn from the Galilean moons will build towards our understanding of ice-ocean-rock moons including Titan and Enceladus.

Of these three arguments, I personally find the final most compelling.  We have done most of the easy missions for the solar system.  Significantly deepening our understanding of key worlds and systems will require focused exploration.  (Even if JEO turns out to be the only mission to fly to Jupiter, it is capable enough that it would count in my opinion as focused exploration.)  In the coming decade, I favor focused exploration on three and a half targets.  First, there will continue to be Mars which is likely to receive several orbiters from Russia, China, and ESA/NASA, 2-3 rovers, and possibly a network of science stations.  Second, could be the Jovian system.  And third, there could be Venus which could be the recipient of Russian and American landers, a European balloon platform, and several orbiters.  All in all, the next decade, thanks to the combined contributions of a number of space agencies, could see the in-depth exploration of the solar system expand from one target (Mars) to several.

The half target in my scenario would be the Saturn system.  Eventually, we need to return there with flagship class spacecraft.  I found the case laid out for a flagship class orbiter to take the global study of Titan to the next level in the TSSM study compelling.  Not only will a battery of instruments be required, but a high power communications system (which drives the need for a flagship class spacecraft) is essential to return the data stream.  However, there are, I think, a couple of low hanging fruits available for the Saturn system.  The first is Enceladus, for which a New Frontiers-class mission with with advanced instruments should provide a significant advancement in our understanding.  The second is in situ probes for Titan, which is about the easiest place in the solar system to land on or fly or float above.  The proposals in progress for a Discovery-class lake lander and a Discovery-class airplane suggest that in situ Titan probes could be within the budgets and technical capabilites of several space agencies in the coming decade.  The key problem for most in situ probes is the data communications challenge -- there simply isn't room within these probes to house the power systems and antennas to return large amounts of data.  So, I favor a New Frontiers class orbiter that would switch between focused Enceladus studies and relay duties for Titan in situ probes over the course of perhaps a decade or more in orbit around Saturn.

For the past year, I have closely followed the Decadal Survey process as well as the planning processes of other space agencies.  In this blog entry, I lay out the conclusions I've reached.  I hope that the readers of this blog will lay out their own or challenge mine in their comments.

Two Good Articles to Read

Two good articles have been published in the last few days.  The first, from Air & Space magazine describes the proposed AVIATR Titan plane proposal.  The article provides more background on this concept than I've seen before and provides images of the current design. (See this blog entry for a description and pictures of previous designs.)  Unlike proposals for Mars airplanes, the AVIATR design doesn't require folded wings. Deployment following entry into Titan's atmosphere is gentle.  “The clamshell’s heat-resistant bottom drops away, AVIATR is released, and the airplane noses into the airstream and levels off. Its speed at deployment is leisurely—a mere 25 mph. (A Mars airplane, by contrast, separates from its parachute at nearly the speed of sound, then has to unfold and begin flying in a matter of seconds. Lemke calls it the “death plunge.”)”  You can check out the article at http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Titan-Air-.html#

The second article from the journal Nature describes the hope that the Falcon 9 launcher nearing it’s first test flight will fill a critical hole in NASA's plans.  As I discussed in a previous blog entry, NASA will soon lose its workhorse moderate cost Delta II launcher.  As the article states, “’We're almost reaching the stage of desperation for launch vehicles,’ says Jack Burns, a space scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of NASA's science advisory committee. NASA science chief Edward Weiler adds, ‘If there is no replacement ever for the Delta II, that would take away a critical capability.’ He hopes that in three or four years the Falcon 9, developed by SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, will emerge as a low-cost replacement. ‘Very much hoping, I might add.’”  The article is posted at http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/465276a.html

Correction: I should have also pointed out that the Nature article discusses  Orbital Sciences' Taurus II launcher which could fill the gap for small lunar and planetary missions.

Upcoming Events

At the last OPAG meeting in February, Jim Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division, gave an update on the program.  Included in that update was a schedule of upcoming planetary exploration events for the next three years.  I've slightly modified the list of events to include key mission selection events.  I was unable to find a definitive timeline for when ESA will select its next large mission; one of the candidate missions is the Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter.

Looking over this list, the next three years will be a wonderful time for those of us who follow planetary exploration.

2010

• June 13 - Hayabusa (JAXA) asteroid sample return
• Decadal survey: 2nd-3rd Quarter Prioritization and drafting of survey report 
• July 10 – Rosetta (ESA) closest approach for asteroid Lutetia
• Sept – Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter transitions to Planetary Science Division
• Nov 4 - EPOXI encounters comet Hartley 2
• Late ‘10 Venus Climate Orbiter (JAXA) arrives at Venus
• Late ‘10- Early ‘11(?) – Opportunity gets to Endeavour
• Late ‘10- Early ‘11(?) – Down selection of Discovery missions?

2011

• Decadal Survey - 1st Quarter Report approved, NASA, NSF, OMB and Congress briefed and report released (prepublication-format)
• Feb 14 - Stardust NExT encounters comet Tempel-1
• Mar 18 - MESSENGER orbit insertion at Mercury
• April/May - New Frontiers mission selection
• July - Dawn orbit insertion at asteroid Vesta
• Aug - Juno launch to Jupiter
• Sept - GRAIL launch to the Moon
• Oct - MSL launch to Mars

2012

• Mid-year – Dawn leaves Vesta starts on its journey to Ceres
• Mid-year – Selection of next Discovery mission?
• Aug - MSL lands on Mars
• Oct - LADEE launch to the Moon

Decadal Survey Update

I've been busy with various projects so that recent posts have focused on process which are quicker to write.  Within the next week, I'll start posting again on possible future missions.

At the just completed Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Steve Squyres provided the most complete explanation and update of the Decadal Survey I've seen yet.  (Go to the Decadal Survey webpage, and look for 'View the Presentation given by Decadal Chair Steve Squyres to the LPSC on the status of the study' about a quarter of the way down the page.  This is a Java link, so I can't provide a normal link.)

His presentation discusses the scope of the Survey, which will prioritize all Flagship and New Frontiers missions.  If New Frontiers missions are prioritized by rank as opposed to just identifying a candidate pool of targets, this will be change in how these missions are selected.  The last Decadal Survey selected a pool of (if memory serves me correctly) four missions that was latter expanded to six to eight missions.  Any target within the pool -- which ranged across the solar system -- was an allowable target.  Squyres' slide suggests that instead, this Survey may actually designate which specific targets are priority #1, #2, and so forth.

Discovery missions will continue to be selected by competition, but the science goals by which they will be selected will be identified by the Survey.  Only missions that have received formal budgetary new starts and therefore are in development are exempt from review (these are Juno [Jupiter interior and atmosphere], GRAIL [lunar gravity], Mars Science Laboratory rover, LADEE [lunar atmosphere], MAVEN [Mars upper atmosphere]).  All other missions including the Mars Trace Gas orbiter and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter are subject to Survey review and prioritization.  A key requirement is that the recommended list be able to be implemented within expected budgets.  NASA has made it clear that it will use the Survey's prioritization as its priorities.

Squyres included a schedule for completing the survey:

2010

• 1st- 2nd Quarter Final Panel meetings, Panel reports finalized
• 2nd-3rd Quarter Prioritization and drafting of survey report
• 4th Quarter Draft survey report to reviewers, Report revised

2011

• 1st Quarter Report approved, NASA, NSF, OMB and Congress briefed and report released (prepublication-format)
• 3rd Quarter Printed report released

Editorial Thoughts: The presentation suggests a difference in the way New Frontier missions are selected.  In the past, they have been selected from a list of missions.  In any given decade, only a third (and later after the list was expanded a quarter) of the missions could be selected.  If the survey is prioritizing New Frontiers missions, the list of missions would likely be constrained to just those that could be afforded within the coming decade.  It is also possible that the Survey will recommend one or more small Flagship missions at around $1 - 1.5B (compared to ~$3B for a full scale Flagship mission).  If this occurs, the coming decade could have a much more focused program than the last decade.

A couple of weeks ago, the subscription-only journal Nature had an article discussing the Astronomy Decadal Survey, which is in progress but somewhat ahead of the Planetary Decadal Survey.  Nature held a round table with several prominent astronomers who were not members of that Survey.  The participants emphasized the importance of a 'narrative' to provide a story behind the recommendations of a Survey.  The search for life in the universe and understanding the origins of the universe were discussed as possible astronomy narratives.  (As a side note, a strawman poll of the Nature discussion participants gave priority to the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, the Giant Segmented Telescope, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, and the Constellation-X Observatory/International X-ray Observatory.)

If the planetary survey selects a narrative, then prioritizing the larger Flagship and New Frontiers class missions makes sense.

I don't think it's hard to predict a likely Planetary Survey narrative: The search for possible habitats for life, past or present, in the solar system.  This would give priority to missions to Mars, Europa, Titan, and Enceladus.  Venus, Ganymede, and Callisto might gain supporting roles as worlds that help us understand the evolution of terrestrial planets and icy moons.  If this becomes the narrative, the target worlds are easy to predict.  What is harder to predict is how the Survey will recommend that dollars and therefore mission resources be divided between them.

Appendix: This is the list of missions that the Survey is considering for the next decade (from Squyres' presentation). The institution performing the analysis of each mission is also given: Goddard Spaceflight Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, and the Marshall Spaceflight Center.

• SAGE (NASA New Frontiers 3 Candidate)
• Venus Mobile Explorer (GSFC)
• Venus Tessera Lander (GSFC)
• Venus Climate Mission (GSFC)
• Moonrise (NASA New Frontiers 3 Candidate)
• Lunar Polar Volatiles Lander (APL)
• Lunar Network Mission (MSFC)
• Mars Trace Gas Orbiter (JPL)
• Mars Polar Mission (JPL)
• Mars Network Mission (JPL)
• Mars Sample Return (JPL):
• Mars Astrobiology Explorer with Cacheing
• Mars Sample Return Lander
• Mars Sample Return Orbiter
• Europa Flagship Mission (JPL)
• Io Mission (JPL)
• Ganymede Mission (JPL)
• Saturn Probe (JPL)
• Titan Flagship Mission (JPL)
• Titan Lake Lander (JPL)
• Enceladus Mission (JPL)
• Uranus System Mission (APL)
• Neptune System Mission (JPL)
• OSIRIS REX (NASA New Frontiers 3 Candidate)
• Main Belt Asteroid Lander (APL)
• Chiron Orbiter (GSFC)
• Trojan Asteroid Tour (APL)
• Comet Surface Sample Return (APL)

Additional Studies

• NEO target study. (Assess NEO targets that can be reached with an electric propulsion spacecraft.)
• Reactor-Based thermoelectric generator technology study.
• Saturn Ring Observer technology study.
• Comet cryogenic sample return technology study.

Beyond describing a prioritized set of NASAplanetary missions, the survey report will address several other issues:

• NSF-funded ground-based telescopes
• Technology development for future NASA
• planetary missions
• The NASA and NSF planetary R&A programs
• Education
• Public Outreach

State of the Program

At major meetings of planetary advisory meetings, NASA headquarters gives a state of the planetary presentation.  A couple of readers have written asking me to provide updates on when New Frontiers competitions, etc. are expected to be completed.  So about twice a year I'll summarize the state of the program.  (These updates happen every few months, usually with little change from presentation to presentation.)

The most recent presentation was by James Green, Director of NASA Planetary Science Division, to the Decadal Survey Steering Committee at the end of February.

The biggest news was the proposed FY11 budget, which I've covered in depth in previous blogs.  As a side comment, though, Green said that the proposed budget for about $1.4B was substantially less than the budget for the Solar System Exploration and Mars programs earlier in the decade (when these were two separate programs).  I went back and checked old budgets, and the combined FY04 FY05 budgets for the two programs was $1.9B.  Given inflation, today's budget is a substantial loss in purchasing power.  Unfortunately, the programs that NASA is trying to fit into today's budget -- an aggressive Mars exploration program leading to a sample return, the New Frontiers and Discovery principal investigator led mission programs, and an outer planets flagship mission -- was sized for the budgets of mid last decade.  Something will have to give in the coming decade.

Good News

Here's a list of the funded programs in the new budget:

• Continued operation of all in 11 in flight missions including Cassini and the Mars MER rovers
• Juno (Jupiter interior and atmosphere), GRAIL (lunar gravity), Mars Science Laboratory rover, LADEE (lunar atmosphere), MAVEN (Mars upper atmosphere) continue development
• Continues advanced funding for Europa Jupiter System mission pending recommendation from the Decadal Survey
• Restart of Pu-238 (if Congress approves; they withheld approval last year)

Mars Science Laboratory on track for 2011 launch with only minor issues remaining. [Am I'm glad to write that at last!]. No major titanium issues found.

Next New Frontiers mission will be selected in April/May 2011 between MoonRise (lunar sample return), OSIRIS-Rex (asteroid sample return), and SAGE (Venus lander)

Final schedule for selection of the next Discovery mission remains open (From the draft Announcement of Opportunity released last December, a downselection to a small number of candidate missions would likely occur by early next year with final final selection in mid 2012 and launch no later than 2016.  However, this is subject to change.)

NASA has committed to the joint mission with ESA for the Mars Trace Gas orbiter and request for proposal for instruments has been released.  (NASA has also agreed to participate in ESA's 2018 ExoMars rover mission.  NASA's current plans are include a capable lander of its own to cache samples for eventual return, but the scope of that involvement presumably is subject to change based on the Decadal Survey's recommendations.)

Not so good news:

The Europa Jupiter System Mission appears to still require Russia to fulfill its contracts to supply additional Pu-238.  Restarted production apparently would not supply new material in time for this mission.  Right now there is enough Pu-238 on hand for a Discovery mission, a lunar network mission, and about half of the Jupiter Europa Orbiter requirements.  [The lunar network mission costs have exceeded expectations, so a small amount of Pu-238 may become available to cover a small part of the JEO shortfall or to power another Discovery-class mission.]