Slashdot Mirror
NASA Mulls Missions To Neptune and Uranus, Using the Space Launch System
MarkWhittington writes: According to a story in Astronomy Magazine, NASA is contemplating sending flagship sized space probes to the so-called "ice giants" of Uranus and Neptune. These probes would orbit the two outer planets, similar to how Galileo orbited Jupiter and how Cassini currently orbits Saturn. The only time NASA has previously had a close encounter with either of these worlds was when Voyager 2 flew by Uranus in 1986 and then Neptune in 1989. Each of these missions would happen after the Europa Clipper, a flagship-class mission scheduled for the mid-2020s.
I thought they changed the name to Urectum.
... to Titan will be approximately three weeks after never :P
Well, at least they're not planning to follow up the wasteful 2020 flagship to Mars with yet another flagship to Mars as part of their ongoing Mars obsession at the cost of the rest of the solar system.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Herschel, its discoverer, wanted to name it "George". ;)
Really, Uranus was a naming mistake - in keeping with the names of the other planets, it should have been named Caelus.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Interesting then that the english pronounciation of "Caelus" is the same as the english pronounciation for the Greek word for "ass" (kappa omicron lambda omicron sigma).
What size is a flagship?
Beware of Klingons around Uranus.
NASA is contemplating sending flagship sized space probes
Is the "flagship" the S.I. unit for space probe size?
Is it going to be this big?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Is it a probe mission?
Give the contracts to the folks that built and flew New Horizons to Pluto. We'll be there next week and everything will work perfectly. Those folks did a great job.
Indeed, "Flagship class" refers to NASA's Flagship Program and doesn't say anything about the probe size. Given the need to carry a braking thruster all the way to the destination, I dare say that the actual payloads will be relatively small.
A permanent base on the moon, with solar energy storage and a rail gun, would provide a great fast launch system. Hmm, a useful base on the object a stone throw from earth? Nah, let's skip that and shove money down the "colonize mars" rathole.
Phrasing...
Building probes to far places is one of NASA's strong suites.
They (as in JPL?) are arguably better at it than anybody else.
They should totally do this.
Building the booster to get them on their way may be a different story.
The probe folks should not be used to prop up the booster folks.
Part of NASA's reason for being is cheap, no big deal, access to space.
As a technology provider, since the shuttle, they have failed miserably.
As a technology consumer, fostering a competitive environment, they are actually doing quite well.
If the internal NASA booster folks want launches, they need to be world class in cost and reliability.
Today, they are arguably not. But it's too early to count them out as incorrigible slackers.
And he wanted to love him and hold him and squeeze him and pet him...
NASA's needs Pu to get to Uranus (puns intended). If they can manage to get the correct isotope of Plutonium then a space probe that uses ion propulsion would have the necessary electrical power to drive the extremely efficient drive even when, as in this case, it is very far from the sun. Since the space probe DAWN has proven that multi-year thrusting of ion engines does work quite well, this would enable a "flagship" (read "big") mission to get to the very outer planets in less than a decade. It could spend roughly half its time accelerating to a high cruising speed then almost as long decelerating to be captured into orbit.
Then, once the mothership has arrived in orbit then, like Cassini, smaller spacecraft could be employed to explore the various moons and atmosphere of these gas giants. (Unfortunately since the moons of Uranus and Neptune may not be large enough to effectively permit gravity assists like Cassini uses with Titan or Galileo used with the four large Galilean moons, you might need smaller probes because the ion drive may have too low a thrust for dynamic orbital changes). Now the RTGs, having powered the spacecraft to the far reaches of the solar system, could be "gainfully" (ha ha) employed to power a high bandwidth radio transmitter/laser communicator. This would enable the small probes exploring the system to send lots of data back to earth without each carrying a huge antenna, only the mothership.
Why all spacecraft don't utilize the extremely high energy/weight RTGs for deep space PROPULSION is beyond me. I (maybe mistakenly?) think that the RTGs, since it generates its power from the natural decay of a radioactive element, is constantly "on" and if you don't use the power being generated YOU LOSE IT (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong!). So it would seem to be ideal for a space probe that needs to go somewhere far far away from the sun and for which a low thrust high impulse drive (like ion propulsion) that requires large amounts of electric power is ideal. Maybe it's because the DAWN probe needed to prove the ion technology before NASA could commit a flagship mission to it.
Too bad that the isotope of Pu that they need for the probe isn't the same that is used in nuclear bombs, that would be the most apt fulfillment of the biblical(?) phrase "beating swords into plowshares". Oh well, Congress needs to fund the reactor that is used in the nuclear fuel cycle that manufactures this critical resource for space travel.
Of course this is only a stopgap until we get either the Lockheed Martin or MIT (mini) fusion reactors working!
why on earth to (pun intended) would humanity want to explore neptune and uranus before europa, enceladus, ganymede, callisto, and even titan?
The SLS is not needed, if only because the Falcon Heavy, perhaps even a super-heavy version, has a good chance to be ready before SLS.
Even better, stop relying on single launches of heavy launchers, and develop automated in-orbit refueling instead. A lot of the required mass is going to be fuel anyway; why not launch probes (or ships) with empty tanks on a parking orbit with medium launchers, and send fuel on several launches of small/medium launchers? Small launchers used often are bound to cost less in the long run than a heavy launcher that flies once a year.
On-orbit assembly could also work: either automate docking of the probe with separate fuel tanks or booster stages; or let astronauts assemble it at the ISS (with multiple launches, the penalty due to the ISS' orbital inclination can be overcome by sending extra fuel); or even astronauts at a dedicated short-term mini-space station made of a Dragon or CST-100 capsule docked to a SpaceHab or Bigelow module.
It's only a question of time before payloads (e.g. manned ships) outgrow even the heaviest launchers and require on-orbit work. Why not develop that right away?
Spend 2% of the budget on CGI, then the rest goes to keeping us from finding out the boundaries of our existence. You do know that NASA is a military operation, right? NASA never went to the moon, or Mars, or anywhere else. It's all "wow" CGI effects. Winning the space race was one thing; they lied to the Russians in order to keep us from war, which saved lives. But in doing so, they lied to us as well. They need to come clean, and expose the flat earth conspiracy.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
...and the rocket that was supposed to get American astronauts back into space... now has unmanned planetary probes as its main missions. Score another one for ATK!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
USS Enterprise sized? Now that is impressive!
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
it is for that reason why a rocket company would be smart to develop their own tug/fuel depot on their dime.
Basically, build several sizes of tugs that have a common interface. In fact, LIDs while being big, would be ideal.
That would make it cheap to hook up to various sats, as well as Bigelow, ISS, tools, etc.
Who is really missing the boat on this would be rocketdyne since they have engines, but do not have active systems.
Another one would be Blue Origin. they have the money and the engines.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Personally, I would love to see NASA come out with one this size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think that was a flagship...its arms could be classed as flagships.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Like, does it take a flagship to search for Klingons?
Yes because it's a five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
you sure have matters licked
This is about spaceships, not seaships. Flagship sized means this big.
https://www.ursinus.edu
Sending orbiters to Uranus and Neptune has only been the most blindingly obvious next step in space exploration for at least 20 years. Why does Jupiter rate a second orbital mission (Juno) before either of Uranus or Neptune have had one?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
This is gonna be awesome.
blah
This topic just screams for some juvenile humor...
There is a sense of humour blindspot on slashdot about Uranus. I can only assume it is a bit of a sore spot.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Mars has been explored heavily because a manned Mars mission (MMM) has been in planning since W announced the project during his term. True, the funding for MMM has been waxing and waning, but so far the plan is still alive (even if sick).
It makes sense to probe Mars heavily before a MMM. For one, the question of past or existing life has yet to be answered. If there is life on Mars, that will greatly affect how a MMM is done.
Table-ized A.I.