This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

TrumpSpace Preview According to Culberson

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 12, 2017
Filed under , , ,

What do the stars hold for the Trump administration? Here’s how NASA’s mission could change, PBS NewsHour
“REP. JOHN CULBERSON: I have always wanted to restore NASA to the glory days of Apollo, as you and I remember as kids. I want to see NASA go above and beyond the glory days of Apollo.
REP. JOHN CULBERSON: When Mike Griffin canceled the Europa mission last decade, it scarred me so badly, I swore I wouldn’t let the bureaucrats cancel this mission again. So, today, the Europa orbiter and lander is the only mission it is still illegal for NASA not to fly.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

26 responses to “TrumpSpace Preview According to Culberson”

  1. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Interesting that Culberson supported the JIMO mission and feels Mike Griffin cancelled it. Nuclear power supply work has continued although it is apparently not included in the current Europa proposal. http://newatlas.com/fission

  2. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    Didn’t the original Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter have nuclear propulsion? It might have been too over-ambitious. If it had Sean O’Keefe’s backing I can see why Griffin would have cancelled it.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Yes, JIMO was massively over-ambitious. Some of that was a reaction to the previous concept for a Europa mission. It targeted a realistic cost and ended up being very under-ambitious as a result.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        I don’t even remember a previous mission proposal before JIMO. I’m glad this Europa Clipper looks like a “Go”.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          There were two realitivity serious missions studied by NASA before JIMO. Very shortly after the Galileo detection of an ocean inside Europa, they looked at an orbiter with a fairly good instrument complement. That was when the radiation issues first really came up. That drove the cost up to something unrealistic. Then they looked into what sort of orbiter would be possible for a realistic cost. The payload was a magnetometer and a radio (for gravity science as well as communications.) That was dropped because the science wasn’t considered sufficient. Then JIMO appeared, partially because the reactor and high power ion thrusters were of interest for other reasons, and partially because expanding the scope to include orbiting _all_ the Galilean moons might justify a very high cost. It might have, but not as high a cost as JIMO would have been. Then, let’s see, a good orbiter at a lower cost than the late 1990s concept (due to some improvements in the state of the art, as well as benefiting ongoing work on understanding and dealing with the radiation environment.) That was going to be a joint mission with what is now ESA’s JUICE mission. That was killed due to budget problems including overruns on other missions. JUICE was reinvented as a stand-alone mission (and having to do so annoyed the Europeans.) Then a stand-alone orbiter was put forward, at the urging of both the Decadal Survey and Mr. Culberson. (This back and forth annoyed the Europeans even more.) When that looked like it would be way over the $2 billion which was considered reasonable, further studies were done on a slightly descoped orbiter or doing most of the planned science with a multiple flyby mission. The multiple flyby mission came out looking like a better choice, and after one more iteration of studies, we ended up with Clipper. You aren’t the only one who is glad Clipper is on track. After all those concepts, studies and restarts, everyone involved is really, really happy actual hardware is being built.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Funny, I think I read somewhere that JIMO had a price tag of 16 billion. That’s crazy money..as in “you’ve got to be crazy to think it’s going to get approved, built, and fly!”

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Yea… The budget was a little unclear (how much for JIMO and how much for the Prometheus program), but it was pretty clearly over $10 billion.

            I was at a workshop they organized when they kicked off JIMO. It was about getting planetary scientists together to talk about what sort of instruments to fly on the mission. That was sort of surreal. Most people were, quietly and in the halls, saying to each other, “You know this is insane don’t you?” and “Yes, but I wouldn’t want to get left out if they actually did it.”

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Yes the number was big but didn’t that include development costs for a space nuke? And isn’t that something that would benefit lots of missions, including outer planets?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Part of the cost was for a reactor. But what was part of JIMO and what was part of Prometheus was always fuzzy. Statements that the reactor and other project Prometheus hardware would benefit future missions was criticized because there were no plans (or prospects of near-term funding) for any such missions.

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    What does he mean by “the bureaucrats”? Is this some sort of code or dog whistle?

  4. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    If Mr. Culberson really wants that Europa lander, he’ll have to sign a large check (or, more properly, get the rest of Congress and the President to do so.) The Science Definition Team report didn’t include cost estimates. But the mission they described was a bit over 13 tonnes at launch, and easily a factor of two more complex that Europa Clipper. I would be amazed if NASA could do that for under $5 billion.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      Yes, the Europa lander is extremely heavy..I read the latest estimate is around 17 tons(US). Would it be worth the extra coinage to land a probe that at the most would last 20 or 30 days?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        As far as I know, there haven’t been any new estimates of the Europa Lander mass since the SDT report came out. That placed it at 13 tonnes and change. But mass wasn’t my only concern. The concept is very complicated and operationally difficult. That’s why I think the cost would be extremely high.

        As to whether a month of data from the surface of Europa is worth it, I think that depends on the data. The SDT wanted a definitive, yes/no answer. “Is there life on Europa?” If the required measurements can be made in a month, extra time operating on the surface is unnecessary and the result could easily justify the cost. I have doubts about how realistic that is, no matter if it is a day, week, month or year of operations. But my standard would be the quantity of the data and the reliability of the conclusion, not the duration of surface operations.

        • Odyssey2020 says:
          0
          0

          I’m sure you’re right, a lander mission is going to be very expensive. I’m not sure how the mission got up to 16+ tons but that’s what PM Barry Goldstein has been saying lately. A 16+ ton lander would almost be 3X the weight of any other spacecraft JPL has built. Heck, the Europa Clipper will be their heaviest spacecraft to date.

          I’m not so sure a lander mission will be approved. It would be at least another 2-3 billion. If the money isn’t approved we may just see two orbiters(1 US / 1 ESA) around the moons of Jupiter in the late 2020’s/early 2030’s.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The mass doesn’t really surprise me. Some of us were completely baffled by the earlier idea of tacking a lander onto the Europa Clipper mission. Some people were actually talking as if the 250 kg of mass margin could accommodate a viable lander.

            The problem is that viable trajectories have to approach Europa at about 5 km/s. There are some tricks with Ganymede flybys and well-designed maneuvers which could reduce that, but they all involve spending far too much time in the nasty parts of Jupiter’s radiation belts.

            That means about 85% of the mass, on approach to Europa, needs to be fuel and oxidizer. Just to make it more fun, that fuel needs to be in a tank, and for tanks of that size, you’d be lucky if the tank mass was only 5% of its capacity. So that’s under 10% of the approach mass available for the lander, the sky crane they want to use to set it down, and the carrier vehicle (which would remain in orbit around Europa as a relay.)

            In any case, the cost is going to be over $2-3 billion. That’s what Europa Clipper will cost. The lander concept is way more complex, and that would make it way more expensive. That’s why it isn’t in the President’s proposed budget. That document almost quoted the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, zeroing out the lander because of “balance” (don’t just fly flagship missions; keep flying Discovery and New Frontiers missions, and funding research and analysis grants) and flexibility to fund other priorities (a Uranus or Neptune orbiter is the next recommended flagship mission.) If Mr. Culberson wants this to happen, he’s going to need to get NASA a big budget increase.

            But I’m a little surprised by your comment about “just” two orbiters at Jupiter in 2030. We’ve never had more than one spacecraft at a time orbiting Jupiter. I wish that were different, but planetary scientists get excited about the prospect of “just” two spacecraft in the jovian system.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            I guess what I mean about “just two orbiters at Jupiter” is that internally, I wish that all future big missions to Jupiter, Saturn etc. will have landers in tow. Galileo and Cassini have set the bar so high with their entry probe and Huygens lander.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think Europa Clipper and JUICE are too far along, but NASA is seriously considering adding small, secondary spacecraft (CubeSat to ESPA-class) to future missions. Atmospheric probes to Jupiter, Saturn or Titan would fit into that sort of package. And that wouldn’t be repetition; the Galileo probe, for example, descended into a 5% atypically dry weather system.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Thanks for all these details you’ve provided fcrary. Most of this stuff I’m learning for the first time.

            On the subject of small landers, cubesats if these land on a Saturian or Jovian moon do these probes have to self destruct after their mission ends?..or is there another way to self-sterilize?

            From what I know this is a big issue that needs to be dealt with when considering landing on many of the outer planet’s moons.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Planetary protection for planetary small satellites isn’t exactly clear. One thing is: They will subject to exactly the same requirements as larger missions. What that means depends on the destination.

            I think Enceladus would now have the strictest requirements (water, hydrothermal systems and an exchange of material between the water and the surface.) The requirements for a Enceladus lander would probably be stricter than for Mars. The requirements for landing on some moons would be minimal. Callisto, although it does have liquid water below the surface (probably), isn’t really a planetary protection issue. The ice layer is so thick that nothing on the surface would reach the water.

            How you would meet planetary protection requirements is a different matter, and people have gone back and forth on it. For a small satellite, hitching a ride to Jupiter on a larger mission, I don’t think a self destruct package; the people in charge of the larger mission might not like.

            Sterilization by heating is one commonly discussed option. But people don’t agree about how hard or easy it would be. It probably rules out commercial electronics, which CubeSats traditionally use, but sterilizing a small spacecraft with few parts would be easier than doing the same to a large one.

            I’ve suggested simply letting radiation do it. Unlike a major mission like Juno or Clipper, a small satellite wouldn’t have a heavily shielded electronics “vault”. The mass isn’t there and the small satellite would be designed for a short mission. In that case, after the mission ends, there wouldn’t be any place for the bugs to hide.

            But all that is hypothetical. NASA’s planetary protection office issues the standards (usually as a maximum probability of contamination), then the mission develops a strategy to comply with the requirements, then the planetary protection office reviews and approves it. No planetary small satellite concept has every gotten that far, so we really don’t know what approaches would be considered acceptable. (MarCO may have gotten that far, but those are doing Mars flybys. Those requirements are easy to satisfy: “We’ll try real hard not to accidentally crash, and even if we do, the heat of atmospheric entry would probably sterilize everything.” might be sufficient.)

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Thanks again fcrary, I appreciate you taking time to explain these issues in detail. Hopefully someone at NASA appreciates your knowledge and skills.

  5. Nelson Bridwell says:
    0
    0

    Anyone have a link to the mentioned Culbertson proposed 50 year roadmap for NASA?

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      I looked around but couldn’t find it. Of course it would be very hard to follow a long term roadmap for NASA as it changes direction under each successive President. Still, Culberson’s goal of reaching one tenth the speed of light is very intriguing.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        It isn’t clear from the interview if Mr. Culberson has actually published or distributed his plan. But in terms of a long term roadmap, he may have a better shot at making one work than a President. Congressmen tend to get reelected and are not subject to term limits. Health permitting (he’s 60), it’s quite likely he will still be in office in the 2030s. Also, unlike the President, he isn’t expected to deal with ever aspect of government. NASA may be closer to the top of his priority list. In fact, he may be the most influential elected official who considers NASA a high priority.

  6. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    CULBERSON: I have always wanted to restore NASA to the glory days of Apollo, as you and I remember as kids.

    {sigh} And this is the source of so much that’s gone wrong with NASA. The sooner Culberson’s generation dies off the better.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Well, without wishing Mr. Culberson any harm, you did make me think of something. I’ve noticed, among the planetary scientists I work with, there seems to be a dichotomy in their attitudes to the way NASA does business (or the organizational culture, if you prefer that phrase.) Some assume, by default, that NASA rules, processes, requirements, etc. must be there for a good reason, even if the reason isn’t obvious. Others, myself included, almost by default assume any given rule, process or requirement is flawed unless the reason for it is clear or can be explained and justified. What occurred to me is that this dichotomy seems to follow the answer to, “What was NASA doing when you were in high school?” Is the answers, “Landing astronauts on the Moon” or “Blowing up a space shuttle and seven astronauts”?

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      It’s a drag, but it might be helping to keep NASA alive and funded as it is. A less sentimental approach to space exploration would probably decide that the crewed program is too expensive for what it returns.