This seems worthy of a new topic now that we have a higher level in the board

Alan has told us that such a mission is possible and could be launched in 2008-2009. There has already been some press coverage of the idea in this Space.com article

Some initial thoughts on what could be discussed here:

What changes should be made to the NH science objectives?

The new mission trajectory, a Uranus encounter?

What changes should be made to the original NH design?

How to sell the mission to NASA.

I think the biggest selling point is that we will get to study the Uranus system at it's equinox. The atmosphere will be much more active and interesting. Also would have the potential to create global maps of the moons. Voyager 2 caught the system in Southern summer - and only caught (at best) the southern hemisphere of the moons. Recent ground-based Uranus oservations are already showing a more active Uranian atmosphere than in 1986.

I hope NH2 will get the go-ahead!

NH2 fans-- Go to www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb to download a .ppt backgrounder on NH2. Enjoy.

-Alan

I dont think I've seen an image showing such a small payload on such a large rocket in that sort of ratio since the Apollo command module on top of Saturn V

Quick Q about what I guess is the -Y / Aft LGA

is it the same as the +Y / Fore LGA - i.e. simply held there atop the three structures, but not using any sort of reflector underneath - and infact what looks like it might be a parabolic reflector for it is the bottom of a spherical fuel tank? The Fore +Y LGA is simply atop a small reflector because that's what the MGA uses below, and the LGA doesnt use that in any way.

Is the MGA for up/downlink in Early cruise - it looks similarly boresighted to the HGA but I guess it has a much wider beam.

And will the whole thing be wrapped up in similar insulation to the back of the HGA - I love that stuff A friend sent me a small sample cut-off from the Beagle 2 insulation

I think there's an excellent case to be made for duplicate hardare for any key mission to be honest. It's worked beautifully with MER, and may well be employed with MSL. It worked with P10/11, V1/2, Vi1/2 as the PPT says. It does seem a bit nuts to build some excellent hardware and only use the design the once - and a sister spacecraft offers excellent value for $ if you consider the bigger picture. An NH2 would make for good value for people on the ground as well - commanding the two would make operations more streamlined etc. When you get to play with two spacecraft, you get better at doing it twice as quickly.

You may have to buy the guys at the DSN some drinks first though

Doug

I can tell you that NH 2 got absolutely no discussion -- none -- at the recent Solar System Strategic Roadmap meeting. Indeed, I asked Andrew Dantzler (NASA's new Solar System branch head) about this, and he said that its flight is considered unlikely and it doesn't really fit in well with the sequence of missions that NASA and the science community really wants to fly, so they felt no need to talk about it unless organizational circumstances change and its flight sudenly becomes more likely. (I'll add that the fact that NH 1 now is assured of enough plutonium to fly by some KBOs besides Pluto further reduces the chances of NH 2 ever flying.)

On the other hand, that meeting revealed a sharp surge of interest in the possibility of missions a little later that would fly by Saturn, Uranus or Neptune and drop off two or three entry probes at their flyby target -- after which they could very easily proceed to make some KBO flybys. The reason is that the Solar System Decadal Survey plan as it is currently exists pretty much runs out of worthwhile New Frontiers-type medium-cost missions after 2020 but suffers from a glut of super-expensive but scientifically desirable "Flagship" type missions, so the favored strategy is now to break up the latter into two or more smaller medium-price missions to make mission planning more flexible. Unfortunately, not that many of them can be thus broken up -- but it is possible to split the proposed Neptune (or Uranus) Orbiter with Entry Probes in two, with the orbiter flying separately from a flyby craft that drops off the entry probes.

You can fly the same kind of mission at Saturn -- and at Jupiter, where the initial hope of flying a less complex Jupiter polar orbiter that would drop off two or Jupiter entry probes just for the cost of a single New Frontiers mision has also gone agley, to quote Robbie Burns. A Jupiter polar orbiter and a Jupiter flyby mission to drop off multiple entry probes there will now also have to be flown separately.

Unfortunately, there won't be any celestial mechanical opportunities for a long time for a single such spacecraft to fly by,and drop off probes at, two or more giant planets. But some of these missions, if properly designed, COULD well include, as another bonus, another goal desirable enough that it's the focus of another possible future New Frontiers mission (which the Decadal Survey recommended for flight at some point largely at Alan Stern's urging): a mission to fly by one of Jupiter's Trojan asteroids and then also past one of the "Centaur" objects (like Chiron and Pholus) that apparently wander in from the Kuiper Belt to take up orbit between Saturn and Neptune. Of course, any mission that flew past a Trojan would have to proceed directly out to one of the more distant giant planets without a Jupiter gravity assist -- and it would be hard to set up a Centaur flyby with a craft that also flew by Neptune -- but the overall idea is quite workable. Indeed, a mission that dropped off entry probes at Saturn or Uranus might also feature a veritable smorgasbord of small-body flybys: first a Main Belt asteroid, then a Trojan, then a Centaur, and finally more than one KBO.

Bruce-- Were you at SSES? I was. Jon Lunine directly asked me to discuss it and then several questions ensured after my invited talk on NH1.

That said, I agree NASA seems dead set against NH2. Of course, the community, as evidenced at OPAG, is by and large for it.

-Alan

From what I've seen in the 2006 budget there are already two studies underway both competing for the 2008 New Frontiers slot, so it's going to be hard work getting the funding.

First idea, as launch is the main element of the cost, perhaps a trade can be done for an RSA or ESA vehicle in exchange for ISS capacity or whatever.

Second, drop the clone and go with international partners in a new design - both RSA and ESA or even the Chinese - add 20% for overhead

I wasn't at SSES -- but, as I say, I was a bit surprised to hear not one word about NH 2 from any scientist at the Solar System Roadmap meeting; it's for that reason that I finally had to actively prod a comment out of Dantzler. I repeat, however, that there is a LOT of interest now on the part of NASA in flying outer planets flyby missions combined with entry probes and small outer-body flybys -- the need to chop up the really big Solar System Roadmap missions wherever they can be so chopped (and there aren't that many opportunities) has become clear. I'll elaborate in my upcoming piece on that meeting.

New from the Front: The New Horizons science team voted on 26 February to recommend NASA recompete the science team for New Horizons 2 and make all instruments facility class in order to maximize science community participation.

Thanks for the update Alan. By "recompete the science team" do you mean invite new proposals from the (worldwide) science community?

Google gave this meaning of 'facility class':

A Facility-class Science Instrument (FSI) is a general purpose, reliable and robust instrument that provides state-of-the-art science performance at commissioning, through the use of modern, but mature technologies.

in contrast with:

A Principal Investigator-class Science Instrument (PSI) is a general purpose instrument that is developed and maintained at the state-of-the-art throughout its useful operating life.

The gist of the thing is to select a new science team for the flight through
an open competition.

Is it possible for NH1 to use NH2 as a relay?

No.

Alan, Sky and Tel reported that if NH2 were launched that you would launch it to a binary Kuipter Belt object. Is that still the option on the table or are other options being considered for NH2 as well?

Yes, that is a favorite option. A BIG bnary like 1996TC36; this
one also allows the Uranus flyby on the way. See the .ppt
on NH2 at www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb, this trajectory is outlined
in the .ppt

-Alan

After the JGA to Uranus opportunity closes, when will the option of a useful JGA to Saturn, Uranus or Neptune next present itself?

"After the JGA to Uranus opportunity closes, when will the option of a useful JGA to Saturn, Uranus or Neptune next present itself?"

As a matter of fact, a Jupiter/Neptune opportunity opens up only a year later (Jupiter-assisted flybys to Uranus or Neptune are possible about every 12 years, with a 2 or 3-year window). The next Jupiter/Saturn opportunity starts in, I believe, 2015 -- those come along every 20 years, again with a several-year window. Unfortunately, there seem to be no Saturn/Uranus or Saturn/Neptune opportunities for a long time.

By the way, not only is now possible to get a modest-sized flyby craft to one of the planets beyond Jupiter without a Jupiter flyby in a reasonable period of time -- consider the emergency 2007 backup plan for New Horizons -- but, if you're willing to attach a solar-powered ion drive that shuts down and detaches partway through the Asteroid Belt, you can send quite a large craft to one of those worlds without a Jupiter flyby and then aerocapture it into orbit around that world. Alternatively, you can attach such a drive to a craft that simply flies by its targets without stopping, and then have it utilize its huge solar panels to provide the craft itself with all the electrical power it needs throughout its entire mission, without having to carry along an RTG and its plutonium with all the resulting safety and political problems. JPL designed just such a mission back in the early 1990s that would have flown by Uranus AND Neptune AND several KBOs, and could have dropped off entry probes at the two planets. Unfortunately, that window of target opportunities has since slammed shut -- just as a splendid opportunity to have New Horizons itself make a very close flyby of either Io or Europa was lost due to Goldin's stupidly imposed launch delay on a Pluto probe from late 2003 to early 2006.

Bruce,

I agree about the lost opportunity for deep-penetration Galilean satellite system flybys
had a Pluto mission been launched between 2001 and 2004. Oh well, the good
news is we get a magnetotail exploration possibly out to 1000 Rj which was
not possible for the earlier (sharper turning) arrivals.

That said, I believe you are incorrect about some other things. The JGA-Neptune
window CLOSES in 2007 for about 8-9 years. The JGA-Saturn opportunity opens
about 2010.

...And as to aerocapture-- no one has done it-- ever, and it's not easy--
either thermally or navigationally (during entry/exit). The same applies to solar
arrays beyond 4-5 AU: it's not just the huge size and mass, but the cold
temps the arrays have to run at. We almost ran a tech demo of a few Gallium
cells on NH just to see if they could be made to work far out, as a part of
our EPO, but the Student Dust Counter idea won out instead.

-Alan

The PowerPoint Dr. Stern mentioned several posts back is definitely worth reading. It lists several mission scenarios with the Uranus flyby and an example Uranus flyby geometry. Thanks for making it available to us.

Since there is a Jupiter-Neptune opportunity that closes in 2007 (soon after the launch of NH 1), has there been consideration for such a mission? The reason I ask is because there seems to be more interest in Neptune than in Uranus at the present time. Maybe going to Neptune is an easier sell to NASA? Or is there just not enough time to get a Jupiter-Neptune-KBO mission ready for 2007?

Thank you for your time.

- c

The answer is the latter -- simply not enough time to get an NH 2 ready by 2007, even if it's funded at all. Two possible contributing factors, however, are:

(1) The 2008 Uranus mission would allow a look at Uranus close to its equinox -- whereas any later Uranus flyby or orbiter will find Uranus in the position with its north pole mostly pointed at the Sun, as its south pole was during the Voyager 2 flyby. An equinoctial flyby would allow us to observe Uranus' weather patterns during such a period (when they seem to be radically different from those in its solstice periods), and would also give us an improved look at the same sides (southern) of its moons seen by Voyager -- whereas a later mission would be able to see only their north sides, with their south sides completely night-shrouded. By contrast, you can get an equally good look at Neptune whenever you choose to visit it.

(2) The 2008 Uranus flyby allows us to set up an NH 2 flyby of an especially large -- and binary -- known KBO (in addition to whatever smaller ones we discover in the meantime, as with NH 1).

I'm not sure that I find these reasons for NH2 adequate to justify spending so much money on it as opposed to other space science missions -- the case is much less clear-cut than with NH 1, where any delay in a Pluto mission managed to simultaneously inflate its cost AND sharply reduce its science output and chances of success. A later Uranus mission equipped with 1 or 2 entry probes -- despite its higher cost than NH 2 (whose cost is lessened by the fact that it's an immediate near-duplicate of NH 1), and the fact that it would miss an equinoctial examination of Uranus and its moons -- might well, on balance, still be more scientifically cost-effective than NH 2. Still, the initially listed points do exist as possible selling points for this mission.

I think that there is a clear justification, as it would allow coverage of both the northern and southern hemispheres of Uranus and its moons, and with an instrument like LORRI, this would somewhat makeup for the speed of the flyby in terms of obtaining global coverage. I have placed two links to my recent work that I posted in the Cassini forum, one to my new page on Umbriel and the other to the composite image I created for the page. It was a reminder of just how poor our coverage of the Uranian moons is. Granted, coverage of Ariel and especially Miranda is better, but both could stand to be improved. And some closeup weather coverage during equinox would also be interesting. Unlike Neptune, which is sure to get an orbiter sooner or later, and can better justify one since it has Triton, which, in addition to being interesting, can be used to modify the orbiters path to encounter the smaller moons and change its orbital plane. A Uranian orbiter, it would seem, would need a prohibitive amount of fuel. In other words, this may be our only chance in our lifetimes to get a better view of the Uranian system.

http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/umbriel.html
http://i149.exs.cx/img149/5645/umbrielcombo9ci.jpg

My view is that NH2 is an opportunity-- low hanging fruit if you will. We
can seeze it and have a second KB mission by 2020, a revolutionary Uranus dataset
in 2014-2015, and another crack at Jupiter and the satellites about 2010,
or we can wait until Uranus orbiters with probes, Kuiper Belt orbiters,
and the budgetary tooth fairy appear. I'm continually amazed at how many of
my colleagues in the outer planets communty would rather have no
mission than one they do not consider the ultimate mission.

Alan, what would the deadline for NH2 approval be in order to make the 2008-09 launch windows? If you are just planning on copying NH1, then would you still need to go through the process of PDR, CDR, EIS etc?

Also, I note in the ppt presentation NH2 is described as using an Atlas V 551 or cheaper launch vehicle. Are some of the mission options viable with an Atlas 541 or 531? I know the launch vehicle is one of the biggest costs, so would saving a solid rocket or two may make it significantly easier to win support?

Best wishes for the EIS reviews.

We have the design, the manufacturing specs, all the software, and
the ground and flight procedures, etc.-- inhereted from NH1. The pacing item
is the ELV-- one needs 30 months from contract, which means a fall 2005
start for the spring 2008 window or a year later for the spring 2009 window.
But caution-- 2009 is the last year for JGA-->Uranus at equinox.

As to the ELV, the C3 of the mission is only about 2/3 that of NH1, so
we can fly a smaller Atlas and save beau coup $$$$$.

-Alan

Is the smallest Atlas V much cheaper than the top notch single-core one that NH is using?

Perhaps scope to be a secondary payload on a Atlas V / Delta IV Heavy / Ariane 5 (swop the student dust-counter mass/volume/data budget for an instrument of european origin in exchange for a launch vehicle)
Doug

Alan - best of luck (and skill!) to you on both missions. I'm really hoping NH2 gets off the ground in time to fly by Uranus. I'd really like to see the southern hemisphere of all those moons before I die...

The attitude of your colleagues toward "ultimate" missions is frustrating indeed. Suppose they'd pulled the plug on Voyager after Saturn - would we really be any closer to a Uranus/Neptune mission?

From lfrench@iwu.edu Wed May 25 05:01:07 2005
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:34:59 -0500
From: Linda French <lfrench@iwu.edu>
To: Recipient List Suppressed: ;
Subject: DPS #05-12: New Horizons 2

The New Horizons 2 (NH2) Uranus-KB mission effort plans for a new science
team, selected competitively by NASA.

A New Horizons 2 workshop will be held from 7 to 9 pm on Wednesday, June 8th.
This is the evening before the Boulder OPAG (Outer Planets Assessment Group)
meeting.

The goals of the NH2 workshop will be to ask for input to NH2 mission
objectives, the present the results of the NH2 study done this spring by NASA, and solicit desirable science team attributes for NH2.

The workshops will be held at the Southwest Research Institute's Department
of Space Studies, located at 1050 Walnut Street, Suite 400. This is
just 4 blocks from OPAG's Boulderado hotel site; see
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/officeinfo.html for maps.

Food and drinks will be provided. Interested participants should contact Carrie
Chavez at cchavez@mail.arc.nasa.gov to register.

Alan:

Are there any cost savings on a second spacecraft through the re-use of presently non-spaceflight certified components (such as structural test articles etc) from NH1? I'm thinking of, perhaps, the way Magellan used Voyager components, or even the rebirth of the Mars Observer camera.

Best of luck with the proposals, in any case!

Bob- Well, the entire ground system, all of the subsystem and instrument
simulators, the ground and flight software, and the mission and payload
control centers will be reused. Additionally, much the second spacecraft is
available as spares.

Alan

Alan:
What is the significance of the workshop mentioned in that e-mail? At the risk of being premature, what do you think the chances currently are that NH2 will get off the ground? How soon does serious work have to start in order for NH2 to be able to lift off in 2007 for the JGA to Uranus? Is it possible that these plutionium issues over at Los Alamos could make it difficult to load the RTGs?

The workshop's goals are as stated in the wrkshop announcement: to ask for input to NH2 mission objectives, discuss the results of the NH2 study done this spring by NASA, and solicit desirable science team attributes for NH2.

What do I think the chances are? It is hard to tell. There is a chance we'll get it funded.
There is a chance the timing is too tight to make this happen. The earliest feasible launch is 2008-2009-- just barely in time to make the serendipitous Uranus encounter possible,

-Alan

Having quickly skimmed through the new solar system exploration roadmap it seems no Uranus mission launches (flybys or orbiters) will happen before 2035 so this looks like an outstanding and cheap opportunity to me. Also this yields (as has been pointed out) an equatorial view of Uranus and its satellites, the camera/instruments is much better than on Voyager 2 etc. (I assume the cameras would carry IR filters to see more atmospheric features than Voyager 2 was able to see).

Unfortunately, given the budgetary situation and problems and cost overruns in various projects (the shuttle, JWST etc.) it seems to me the chances of NH2 happening are close to zero. I sure hope I'm totally wrong.

Whhile I agree that the chances of NH 2 flying are extremely small (sorry, Alan), there is a very real chance of a Uranus flyby and multiple entry probe mission occurring in the 2025-35 period. This type of mission might be flyable within -- or close to -- the New Frontiers cost cap; and the fact that NASA, during that period, will be starting to run low in scientifically worthwhile new missions within the NF cost limit will increase its relative appeal.

Maybe the answer is to gift the currently built hardware to the Planetary Society, so that Cosmos 2 has a target *and* a payload!

Now, any countries out there got some spare Pu for the RTGs...

Sorry Bruce, but I don’t have your (naive) optimism. Talking about the 2025-35 timeframe today is no more than bad guessing. A new president, a new Congress or a new war and everything changes. Programs get canceled before reaching the pad and new ones emerge just to disappear. This WILL happen several times until 2025.

I even doubt there will be any other mission in the New Frontiers „Program“ besides NH 1. It’s not really a program. There has yet a second mission to be selected and in my opinion it will at best be one „supporting“ the new „Vision“. Not really a science mission, but one scout for a manned lunar landing.

The reason: Money, other priorities like replacing the shuttle (I’m not talking about landing men on the moon or mars).

I fear the same for the Discovery Program, especially after the recent cost overruns and delayed selecting process. Dawn has been scaled back (no laser altermeter and shorter in orbit times than planned) and Kepler is pushed back again and again.

I’m with Alan here. Fly now whatever you can like there is no tomorrow. You don’t know the next years budget, let alone the budget in 25 years.

Analyst

NH2 would cost <1% of the NASA budget for 3 or 4 years to get built. Predicting nirvana in 20 or 30 years is like someone circa 1985 killing Cassini to await something better ca. 2005 or 2010. The future of 20+ years hence is too far off to bet on. Hell, we
can't predict what will be selected to fly in 2-3 years time.

And now sew you can use: (i) JUNO will likely be selected as NF2-- possibly this coming
week. (ii) NASA will release its NH2 report soon and it will say it would take 8 years
to build the second one, desipite just 4 years to build the first; I understand the
report done before the New Administrator began his shake up, will also say that
a second NH cannot make any significant savings over the first. Expect
a backlash at multiple levels to these ludicrous findings, if the advance
reports are correct.

Somehow, the powers that be dont learn the lessons..2 is better value than 1.

Pioneer 10 & 11
Voyager 1 & 2
Viking 1 & 2
Aqua,Terra (& Aura)
MER A & MER B
NH1 & NH2 should be on this list.

I'm writing a little ( well, a big ) piece on reusing the MER design again. GPS sats, TDRS sats, hell, Iridium, NOAA, Meteosats....the more you make, the cheaper it gets - and the saving is biggest from a volume of 1 to a volume of 2.

Doug

You could add all the Mariners except Mariner 10 (remember that all the other lone Mariners were alone because of failure).

A little OT, but has someone heard more about "Juno" mentioned by Alan than the press release saying it has been pre selected together with a moon lander for further study. Google didn' help.

Any links about this spacecraft and it's instruments? Thank you.

Analyst

Leave out 5, too.

1 & 2 - Venus
3 & 4 - Mars
5 - Venus
6 & 7 - Mars
8 & 9 - Mars
10 - Venus & Mercury

Failed missions are colored red.

I ignored 5 because it was really a third backup to the Mariner 3/4 mission, that, with the success of Mariner 4, was reassigned to Venus.

@tedstryk: Why do you always repeat the complete last posting when answering to it? Nobody needs it twice.

I hadn't noticed that.

Mariner 5 was the Engineering Test Vehicle for Mariner Mars 1964. It was never intended to fly, but was perfectly good hardware left over from the Mars mission. It was reconfigured with some entirely new instruments, plus old ones that flew in 64 (field and particles instruments). The solar panels were reversed on their mounts so the antennas on top of the spacecraft could face outwards from the sun toward Earth instead of inwards.

Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Subject: New Horizons 2 and OPAG Next Week



Colleagues:

We are sending you this email because you are on a participant/interest
email list from the Outer Planets Forum held in Pasadena last summer or
otherwise interested in outer planets exploration.

As you probably know, the New Horizons mission science team has identified
the opportunity to fly a second, cloned New Horizons spacecraft to a large
Kuiper Belt binary, and at least one smaller KBO as well. The estimated
cost of this mission is <$500M, including reserves-- perhaps the least
expensive outer planets mission foreseeable.

If flown, New Horizons 2 would both serve as a backup to the Kuiper Belt
objectives of "NH1" should that mission fail, and, should NH1 succeed,
NH2 would greatly expand the range of Kuiper Belt objects visited,
since NH2 would increase the total number of KBOs visited from perhaps one
(NH1's goal-- not yet approved by NASA) to as many as four, including a large
(500 km class) binary KBO. If launched by 2009, NH2 would also achieve
a serendipitous, target of opportunity flyby of the Uranus system at equinox
that is otherwise unlikely to occur at all.

More information on NH2 can be found at www.boulderswri.edu/pkb

If support the study of the NH2 Uranus-Kuiper Belt mission concept, then
we ask you to email OPAG chair Fran Bagenal to that effect THIS WEEK.
Fran has asked for just such a test of support.

If you feel as we do that the New Horizons 2 Uranus-Kuiper Belt mission
should be discussed and debated among the suite of possible near term
mission concepts at OPAG and other community fora, then we ask you to
say this as well to OPAG chair Fran Bagenal THIS WEEK.

Please also cc Jeff Moore on your email so we can build a list of those
interested in New Horizons 2.

Fran and Jeff's emails are: bagenal@colorado.edu and jmoore@mail.arc.nasa.gov

Thanks and Best Wishes,

Alan Stern
Jeff Moore
Hal Levison
Rick Binzel
Bob Millis
Rosaly Lopes

Alan,

Thanks for the update. Do you think the recent selection of JUNO will hurt the decision to fly NH2 since NASA has now committed about $700 million for JUNO? I have been rooting for NH2 all along but I think this really makes it more difficult to fund it.

I think it is easier now. The main outer planets competition is now safely in the bag.

What do you mean by that?

Also, is there anything we could do to help? Can we email these people as "interested taxpayers"?

I mean that the fear that NH2 would overtake JUNO is now moot, which is a big
plus for community support. No one wanted to screw the pooch on Juno.

Sure you can help by writing Fran Bagenal, OPAG chair. and/or have people write Andy Dantzler (Head of Planetary Exploration) at NASA Headquarters.