tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post2512854919879942444..comments2024-01-03T20:28:17.727-08:00Comments on Future Planetary Exploration: Update on NASA's Planetary ProgramVan Kanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-75686331163451206292010-10-07T22:32:33.140-07:002010-10-07T22:32:33.140-07:00Phil -
Your program makes a lot of sense if NASA ...Phil -<br /><br />Your program makes a lot of sense if NASA and the Decadal Survey chose to make the outer planets and equal focus with Mars.<br /><br />I've read that if JPL does not have a 2018 rover and EDL mission they will lose the team they have with the expertise to carry out ambitious Mars surface missions. So, whether or not to do a 2018 rover mission is a use it or lose it opportunity.<br /><br />JPL could rebuild that expertise in the 2020s, but jumping back into an ambitious program may be difficult without a couple of simpler missions to train the team.<br /><br />This is what make setting priorities so hard.Van Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-72577561902997230902010-10-07T16:55:59.313-07:002010-10-07T16:55:59.313-07:00The alternative to scaling down the Jupiter Europa...The alternative to scaling down the Jupiter Europa Orbiter, JEO, mission is to shift to a lower gear in the Mars Exploration Program. JEO launches in 2020, so it will need peak funding in about 2016-2019. That is the same time frame for the MAX-C, NASA's Mars Rover. <br /> In my proposal, the schedule for Mars missions would be - <br /><br />2018 - Delay the MAX-C Rover. <br />Bring back the Mars Scout program. There are several great missions that could be done, i.e., Mars airplane, balloon, Polar ice Drill. <br /> OR <br /> Participate in ESA's ExoMars rover project, by contributing EDL hardware and perhaps use the Atlas 5 launcher.<br /><br />2020 - skip this window <br /><br />2022 - launch the Max-C rover <br /><br />2024 - skip this window <br /><br />2026 - JAXA, Indian, or ESA orbiter with NASA camera and relay<br /><br />2028 - NASA MSR Lander with MAV and Fetch Rover <br /><br />2030 - Mars Orbiter with Earth Return Vehicle<br /><br /> The skipped launch windows will allow funding to design and develop the technology needed for the MSR MAV. <br /> <br /> The Mars Orbiter in 2030 could be an opportuity to save more money by cooperating with NASA's manned flight division. By 2030, the Orion program might have progressed to the point where they might want to send an unmanned Orion capsule to Mars orbit on a dry run. Orion could rendezvous with the Sample Canister launched by the MAV. The Orion then would return to Earth with the Mars samples.Phil Horzempahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877760318970050320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-31598360892398002122010-10-03T20:25:35.449-07:002010-10-03T20:25:35.449-07:00If we assume NASA will wind up with a budget simil...If we assume NASA will wind up with a budget similar to the Senate and House Authorization bills and the Senate Appropriations bill, there is a problem on the manned spaceflight side of NASA that could affect Planetary Science. The Administration has a goal to get astronauts to NEOs by 2025 (preceded by astronaut missions to lunar orbit and Lagrange points, and followed by missions to Mars orbit and/or moons). There's also a robotic precursor line that only gets $100M (possibly remaining at about that level in later years). That means there's a need for robotic precursor missions to NEOs (or to look for suitable NEOs that are easier for astronauts to reach), and there's a funding line for precursor missions that might only be enough for instruments or small missions. Those instruments might need science missions to get them where they're needed, and those small missions might need to piggyback on launches (in the LRO/LCROSS style).<br /><br />This might wind up affecting the outlook for Planetary Science missions discussed in the previous post. For example, NASA may find itself needing a dedicated NEO planetary science line similar to the Lunar Quest or Mars planetary science lines, which would reduce available funding for other destinations.<br /><br />I wonder how closely the Decadal Survey has been following the political events? I also wonder if these event could play a role in the selection of the 2011 New Frontiers mission.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-12100499071407895392010-10-02T15:12:00.965-07:002010-10-02T15:12:00.965-07:00VK:
You stated
"My take on the "high...VK:<br /><br />You stated<br /><br /> "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..."<br /><br />If true, could that open up the possibility of a scaled down lower cost Europa mission (Frontier class), perhaps limited to a short duration study of Europa itself and not the entire Jupiter system? Although I am a huge proponent of EJSM, I would still be thrilled to get a limited Europa focused mission, especially if it could arrive there before 2027 (ideally 2018 or so).<br /><br />Thanks!Al Schmittnoreply@blogger.com