Next Steps for New Frontiers and Europa Jupiter System Mission

NASA publishes a weekly planetary exploration newsletter. This week had two announcements about the next steps for the selection of the next New Frontiers mission and the Europa Jupiter System Mission. The notes are short enough that I'll reproduce them here.

The New Frontiers mission selection slipped as a result of the Mars Science Laboratory. NASA wanted to understand the impact of MSL's cost overrun before preceding. From the dates in the notice, it appears that the schedule has slipped out about two months. That would put the selection of 2-3 candidate missions for further study around January of next year. Following Phase A studies of the candidate missions, selection of the mission to be flown would occur early in 2011. You can see a list of the acceptable mission targets in the poll on the right side of this blog. The draft announcement also describes the target missions.

NASA's announcement:


"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is releasing a NASA Announcement of Opportunity (NNH09ZDA007O), New Frontiers 2009. NASA expects to select up to three New Frontiers mission proposals for a 10 month Phase A study. Following evaluation of Phase A reports, NASA expects to approve one New Frontiers mission to proceed into Phase B and subsequent mission phases. Launch is to occur no earlier than late CY 2016 and no later than CY 2018. The proposed missions must address the science objectives of one of the eight mission concepts identified in the National Research Council's 2007 report, "Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity."


Europa Jupiter System Mission:

"The Europa Jupiter System Mission is first priority for the OuterPlanet Flagship Missions and involves the NASA Jupiter Europa Orbiter, ESA Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter, and possibly other elements, such as a JAXA Magnetospheric Orbiter. In addition to Europa and Ganymede,substantial Jupiter system science will be conducted.

"The science objectives were defined (http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/library/)
and the mission is in the next stage of development. Goals include
strengthening the science return, encouraging planetary community
involvement, and ensuring support by relevant space agencies. Workshops
are planned to assist potential instrument providers for addressing
radiation and planetary protection issues, with the first workshop
July 15-17 at the Applied Physics Laboratory, Maryland. In addition,
Jupiter-system sessions are planned for near-term meetings, such as
the European Planetary Science Conference this fall in Potsdam."

Russian Planetary Exploration Plans

The last several posts on this blog have focused on issues of management and budget. It's time to return to hardware and flight missions. The next several blogs -- assuming no breaking news -- will focus on information in presentations from a Russian-hosted conference on Europa landers.

Today, though, we'll start with an overview of the Russian planetary exploration program. In the United States, the Russian space program receives little attention. I was delighted to find a "very short overview" of their program presented at a conference on Europa landers last January. Information on the planned astronomy missions was indeed a very short overview. There was, however, a good amount of information on their upcoming mission to the Martian moon Phobos and short summaries of future missions.

Phobos appears to be a D-type asteroid captured into Martian orbit. Previous gravity measurements by other craft have shown that its density is too low to be a solid object. It instead appears to be a rubble pile.

The Phobos Sample Return mission (also known as Phobos Grunt, which means "Phobos soil") due to launch this fall will be an ambitious mission. Its primary goal will be to collect and return a 0.2 kg sample from the surface of Phobos for analysis in Earth laboratories. The return craft will also carry an experiment prepared by the Planetary Society that will take samples of micro-organisms to Phobos and back to Earth. The goal of this experiment will be to assess whether micro-organisms can withstand the rigors of space travel with the sample canister playing the role of a simulated meteoroid. If the organisms survive, then it is possible that life could have passed from planet to planet in meteoroids blasted off their surfaces by large impacts.

Phobos Sample Return spacecraft.

In addition to the sample return, the mission will study Phobos with an array of remote sensing and in-situ instruments. The presentation doesn't provide details of the instruments except the gas chromatograph, which appears to be detailed as an example of the sophistication of the instrument suite. I found relatively little detail on the mission on the web. From the instrument list, it appears the the spacecraft will conduct remote sensing of the moon prior to landing. Following the landing, according to Wikipedia, the spacecraft will collect surface samples and launch the return craft on its journey to Earth. The lander will then study the soil with a variety of instruments over a period of a year.

The mission will also carry a small Chinese orbiter that will study the interaction of the solar wind with Mars' atmosphere.

Brief information was also given in the presentation for several other planned planetary missions:

• The Luna-GLOB mission will launch in 2012 and orbit the moon. It will implant an unspecified number of penetrators into the moon's surface for network studies
• The Luna-Resource mission will land a rover near one of the lunar poles for surface studies. Since the artist conception shows solar panels, it appears that the mission will not target one of the permanently shadowed lunar craters.
• A Venera-D mission is listed for 2016. The slide lists an orbiter that would study the atmosphere and climate, balloons (the plural is used), and a lander.
• A MarsNet mission for 2016 would be done in cooperation with Finland. That latter country would provide a number of small penetrators to establish a network of instruments on the Red Planet.

A roadmap slide showed the schedule for the missions. The Phobos sample return and the two lunar missions were shown as firm dates. The other missions had their launch dates covered with a question mark indicating that they may not yet be committed missions.

Editorial Thoughts: It's good to see Russia returning to planetary missions. The Phobos sample return promises to deliver a wealth of information. According to Wikipedia, the schedule for the 2009 launch is tight. A backup launch date would be 2011.

As I recall, the Phobos mission originally was to carry a prototype of the Finnish MarsNet penetrator. Apparently that has been replaced by the Chinese orbiter. I am a fan of the MarsNet penetrators, and am disappointed to see testing of the landers delayed.

The Venus mission seems to me to be in the early conceptual stage. The list of vehicles and science goals is quite long. The U.S. Venus science community has been putting together a proposal for a similar mission that would cost ~$3B. Even assuming less ambitious goals for the Russian mission, it still seems like quite an undertaking for a launch date that is just 7 years away. If any of the readers of this blog have more information on this, I hope you will post them in the comments.

I do have one armchair explorer hope for the Phobos mission. I would love it if the landing site provided a view of Mars on the horizon. Given Phobos' low orbit, the Martian surface would dominate the sky. That would be a picture worth hanging on the wall.

Possible landing sites (Mars Express image)

Resources:

Russian presentation: http://arc.iki.rssi.ru/conf/2009elw/presentations/presentations_pdf/session1/zelenyi_ELW.pdf

Phobos background (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)

Air and Space article on Phobos-Grunt: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Mission_Possible.html?c=y&page=1

Phobos-Grunt (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos-Grunt

Chinese Yinghuo-1 orbiter: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000985/

Planetary Society's LIFE experiment: http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/life/

Some Thoughts on Cost Overruns

Over the last several days, I've been thinking about the interview with the head of NASA's science program, Ed Weiler, posted by the journal Science. (See here for a summary of the accompanying article.)

Some of his thoughts have stuck in my mind: "Most "cost estimates" that go to the [National Research Council]-and I'm speaking from 31 years of experience with decadals-come from NASA centers or contractors; they don't come from NASA headquarters, and they don't get reviewed by NASA headquarters... Scientists cannot do cost estimation, I'm sorry, they're not trained for that... Anybody who compares a decadal cost-survey estimate to anything in reality, well, I have no comment on that kind of person... And if you think we don't get mean with contractors, go talk to some of the CEOs who've sat here and got an earful from me."

I have known CEOs of several of companies, including some on the Fortune 100 list. Their egos are quite big enough to take a tongue lashing from Weiler. And what is NASA going to do to punish these companies? Tell JPL that they can't build any more planetary spacecraft? Who else has expertise in a number of critical areas? Or tell Lockheed-Martin or Boeing that they can't bid on any more NASA contracts? There are only 2 - 3 companies big enough to support these missions.

Another part of the Weiler interview also got me to thinking. He said, "A billion dollars doesn't buy much any more, it buys you 3500 major aerospace engineers for a year."

The planetary community is starting another Decadal Survey to prioritize the next decade's missions. (They are planning on significantly improving cost estimates.) My best guess at NASA's purchasing power for the next decade -- extrapolating from current budget and guessing that there may be years of frozen budgets as there were the last decade -- is that NASA will have $6-8 billion to spend in 2011 - 2020 on new missions in today's dollars.

Here are some costs for missions that I have gathered over the last year stated approximately in today's dollars (figures in millions of dollars):

Jupiter Europa Orbiter	$2,700
Minimum Mars Science Orbiter	500
Mars Network	1000
Mars Mid-range rover	1400
Comet sample return	1000
New Frontiers (each)	650
Discovery (each)	375

In addition to these missions, NASA is likely to spend $200M+ in this timeframe developing the Mars Maven orbiter (2013 launch) and perhaps $200 to support ESA's ExoMars mission.

Here's what one line up of missions might look like:

		cumulative
MAVEN & ExoMars	400	400
2 Discovery	750	1150
2 New Frontiers	1300	2450
Minimum MSO	500	2950
Mars mid-range rover	1400	4350
Jupiter Europa Orbiter	2700	7050

If the mission costs are approximately right and there are no major cost overruns, then this is a rich mission set. Mars receives several new missions, Jupiter and Europa finally get their return visit, and there are some smaller missions to provide balance. On the other hand, there's not a lot of room for error here and still maintain a balanced program. If the mid-range rover and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter, for example, overrun by 50% each, the Discovery and New Frontiers missions become unaffordable.

NASA Cost Overruns

The journal Science (April 3) has a two page article on the problem of cost overruns in NASA science missions. The article quotes the head of the science program, Edward Weiler, as saying that the thing that prevents him from starting " 'sexy science" missions is all the "new sexy missions started 5 years ago that are costing more than they were supposed to... When I walked into this office, there were a lot of promise made out there, and [the science] communities were pretty happy... Over a 10-year period there were $6 billion of promises made [in planetary sciences] that could not be met.' " Weiler needs $900 million more each year just to keep up with missions on the Earth science roadmap.

The article notes the James Webb space telescope that has grown from $1B to $4B, the $600M Mars Science Laboratory has become $2.2B, the Glory mission to sutdy aerosols and black carbon in Earth's atmosphere is 50% over budget, and the Solar Dynamics Observatory is three times its initial cost. An independent study showed that 25% of NASA's mission went at least 40% over budget.

The article notes that there are no simple answers. If there were, they would have been implemented already. The existence of an "iron triangle among NASA centers, lawmakers, and contractors," is part of the problem. Missions developed by a NASA center are protected by the local Congressional delegations. Every member of the triangle knows that NASA will cave when faced with cost overruns. Missions that have been approved are protected at the cost of starting new missions.

Weiler blames scientists on the Decadal surveys for believing lowball cost estimates. Scientists reply that their estimates come from both NASA and independent assessors.

The process of preparing cost estimates will be much more rigorous in the next round of Decadal Surveys. (Astronomy and planetary surveys are in progress.) Any mission that isn't already underway goes back into the process to be re-evaluated.

Science also has a interview with Weiler posted on its website. A choice tidbit:

Weiler says that the science of the Titan Flagship mission was absolutely compelling, but that the Titan mission was "more or less in the blueprint stage. When we looked at a cost schedule and technical readiness, it was a slam dunk [in favor of Europa]."

Editorial Thoughts: I'm not sure that the iron triangle isn't an iron quandrangle. The science community -- or at least those whose missions become started -- also benefits from lowball estimates that become protected missions.

I would like to think that better run Decadal Surveys will solve the problem. I expect that missions proposed in the next round of Surveys will be better costed. Two issues will remain, I believe. First, estimating the costs of complex, one of a kind missionss is hard. Second, if we knew the true costs to begin with, we would still end up with fewer missions. Our expectations would simply be more realistic.

In my mind, part of the solution could be to include a mix of mission costs within the high priority list of recommended missions. For example, the planetary Decadal Survey could say that flying three Discovery and two New Frontiers missions in the next decade must be budgeted first. Then remaining funds can go to Flagship missions. With this approach, its likely that 4 - 6 missions will fly in the next decade, even if the highest ranked Flagship mission overruns its budget and must be delayed.

Resources:

Link to Science article (will cost $15 unless you have a subscription) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5923/34.pdf

Link to Weiler Interview (appears to be free) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5923/34/DC1

VEXAG Part III - Long Term Surface Measurements

A high priority goal for Venus exploration has been to enable long term stations on the surface of that planet for meteorology and seismic measurements. The heat and pressure of Venus has seemed to put this goal out of reach. At the last VEXAG meeting, a possible solution was presented.

I'll let those with an engineering bent look at the presentations for details. Basically, the solution is to return to instrument concepts from before the advent of current, electronics based solutions. Modern instruments on Earth, or that would be sent to less hostile planetary surfaces, use electronics to hold a reference mass nearly motionless relative to a reference frame. In previous eras, geophones performed a similar function in which a coil generating field was affected by the motion of a magnet. Magnetic materials apparently are questionable for the temperatures and pressures of Venus, so a proposed instrument would use a high temperature variable inductor.

Power would be supplied by a sodium sulfur battery that, with some moderate technical development, could power a station for over a half year, the baseline requirement. Data storage apparently wouldn't be possible within the station. Instead, any data would be relayed real time to a orbiter. A series of stations would be placed on the surface so that one or more would always be in communication with the orbiter.

Basic meteorology measurements would be enable by the same approach of using older technology approaches, updated to function on the surface of Venus.

Editorial thoughts: The presentation lays out a technology development plan to make long-lived (at least within the context of the surface of Venus) measurements possible. Costs of the stations was not addressed. However, Venus is a sister planet with a hellish twist. Understanding the deep interior would allow us to better understand how terrestrial planets evolve and function. I hope that this approach is realistic. It would be nice if it could be afforded within a Discovery class mission. If not, it may be a possible add on to the proposed Venus Flagship proposal that will be discussed in this blog in about a month when the final proposal report is published.

One could imagine a hybrid lander/station. Part would be designed to last for an hour or so on the surface and could provide descent images and surface images. Perhaps basic surface chemistry measurements could be made. After that portion of the lander fails as a result of heat and pressure, a longer lived network station could make measurements for half a year, perhaps significantly longer.

Resources:

Two slide overview of approach http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/feb2009/presentations/venusSeismologyKiefer.pdf

Long presentation looking into details of technical approach http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/feb2009/presentations/seismolgyMeteorlogyHunter.pdf