OPAG Meeting Part II: New Horizons 2
One of the items discussed at the OPAG meeting in Boulder was the proposed New Horizons 2 mission. This mission would use a clone of the New Horizons spacecraft, a mission is preparation for a Pluto/Charon flyby as well as a pass by a smaller Kuiper Belt object. New Horizons 2, if launched in 2008 or 2009, would flyby Jupiter and Uranus on its way to a large KBO. The Uranus aspect is time critical given its setting during the Uranian equinox. This would provide excellent global coverage of Uranus' mid-sized icy satellites (like the oddity Miranda), as well as study Uranus' magnetosphere and atmosphere at this juncture.
For more in-depth information on this proposal, check out a power point file over at the New Horizons website.
From my understanding, the reaction to the proposal was mixed. The issue came down to the lack of ability to propose a New Frontiers mission outside of the 5 recommendations in the Decadal Survey. This certainly needs to be changed if new discoveries or targets of opportunity (like a flyby of Uranus at equinox) are found.
For more in-depth information on this proposal, check out a power point file over at the New Horizons website.
From my understanding, the reaction to the proposal was mixed. The issue came down to the lack of ability to propose a New Frontiers mission outside of the 5 recommendations in the Decadal Survey. This certainly needs to be changed if new discoveries or targets of opportunity (like a flyby of Uranus at equinox) are found.
posted by Jason Perry at 5:06 PM
2 Comments:
This is a very good, if not great, candidate mission, and if it is buried, that will illustrate some flaws in the mission selection process.
Fundamentally, there are numerous top-down constraints imposed upon mission selection now, well-meant, but they only rob the agency of some potential value.
Preconceptions concerning what the target should be punish precisely the kind of mission NH2 would be (returning science from Jupiter, Uranus, and a KBO -- an unlikely trio).
A better formula than the present set of arrangements is to post a "bounty" for all imaginable science goals, and select missions based upon their science/dollar (count risk assessment, too). By definition, any deviation from this method means less science for your budget.
I don't know where NH2 would rank among all possible missions, but it is going to compete at a disadvantage because of institutional top-down constraints that rob the agency of science returned per dollar.
vjkane2000:
I'm with Bruce on this one. I'd love to see a solid mission to one of the ice giants, but NH2 isn't optimized for those targets. You really want a microwave instrument to probe the deep interior and/or an entry probe (ideally both, since they answer different questions).
The fair way to view this is if NASA has a spare $400M for planetary studies, what is the highest priority purchase it can make for that money. Ideally, NH2 should be allowed to compete in the Discovery 12 competition (which would require a waver for the nuclear power source). That would allow a competition for the best mission for about this amount of money.
Post a Comment
<< Home