Search the Community

I was going to put this in cool sciency stuff, but . . . . . Heres a question, if a black hole is not exactly at the center of rotation of a galaxy, is it a polynary stellar system? sort of like alpha-centauri, except having a central star it has a central BH.

http://spacenews.com/esa-members-give-space-agency-an-18-percent-budget-boost/ ESA's budget has recently been increased 18.4% to $5.71 Billion- an increase fuelled by increased investment by the European Commission, along with several European governments- especially Italy. One major area where this funding increase is concentrated in is the Galileo navigation satellite program, along with the Copernicous Earth Observation program- both of whom are owned by the European Commission (But operated by ESA). Thus, the increase in funding the Commission is giving to ESA is largely going to these two programs- which are in the manufacturing and deployment stages, and require the most money at this point. A 72% increase has also been given to ESA for "launchers"- most of which is going to fund the Vega-C and Ariane 6 projects. Italy and France, with majority stakes in the Vega-C and Ariane 6, respectively, have thus increased their funding of ESA by 55% and 18% repectively. However, with the concentration on Earth observation, navigation, and rocket development, some programs have still remained underfunded. One high-profile program is the ExoMars mission, a two part joint program with Rocosmos (the Russian Space Agency) with launches in 2016 and 2018. Woerner, the Director-General of ESA, has stated the 2018 may have to be delayed to 2020 to make up for the underfunding- though this will increase overall mission cost. This portion, which is at risk of delays, includes a lander and a rover being sent to Mars. This possible delay of ExoMars, if undertaken, would be due to ESA underfunding, not Rocosmos- Rocosmos has stated they do not have any delays on their side of the mission. ESA's ISS contributions are also at risk- Weorner has stated that he will do his utmost to convince his member governments to fund ESA's use of the ISS to 2024, from 2020. ESA members are sceduled to meet in December 2016 to determine their future role in the ISS. TL;DR: ESA has been given more money, but it's mostly to new rockets and Earth Observation and GPS-esque satellites. ExoMars may be delayed due to lack of funding, and ISS's ESA use to 2024 is being reviewed.

How do we fill up the SLS 2021-2025 launch manifiest and launch once a year? Currently there are 2 (3 if including Asteroid Redirect Mission) planned SLS Missions for this time period- EM-2, a Manned Lunar Orbital mission, for 2021. SLS-Europa Clipper, a unmanned SLS probe launch, for 2025. and EM-3/ARM, a manned mission to a captured boulder orbiting the Moon, also for 2025. This leaves 2023 and 2022 without having any SLS launches (since 2025 is a year with 2 SLS launches. The next presidency will choose the ultimate near-term goal for the SLS-Orion Program, but the hardware required may not be developed in time- especially if it requires more new technology (like a Lunar Lander), compared to the currently favoured Lunar Space Station (which can be developed more quickly and its lessons are valuable for various deep-space destinations (including long-term habitation of the Moon). On the other hand, ESA is developing its own Jupiter Orbiter, Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, or JUICE, to study Castillo, Europa, and Ganymede (later orbiting Ganymede). It is planned to launch in 2022, using a VEEGA gravity Assist trajectory to sling it to the Jupiter system. As a result, it would arrive in 2030, while Europa Clipper, which is just as complex, if not more (now that it has a lander, and needs to survive Jupiter's radiation belts) arrives in 2027, BEFORE the somewhat less risky Ganymede and Castillo-focused JUICE. If JUICE instead used the SLS Block IB (To be safe, as JUICE is about Five Tons mass, and SLS Block I can only carry up to 4.3 T to Jupiter on a direct trajectory- even a STAR motor may not be enough, and the situation would get worse if the proposed Russian Laplace-P lander is built and attached to JUICE, though unlikely due to Rocosmos' budget cuts) it could get to Jupiter by 2024, a transit time of 2 years. This is advantageous for more than just filling SLS' launch schedule: 1. If it arrives in 2034, JUICE can also use its few Europa flybys during its 3 year tour of the Jupiter system before Ganymede orbit insertion to give missions planners guidelines on where to flyby- currently, only the old Galileo probe produced data capable of doing this job. Not only are these measurements from old 70's-80's era probes (Galileo was delayed from a 1986 launch due to Challenger), Galileo also had to use its low-gain antenna, as its high-gain antenna did not deploy, meaning even less data for Europa mission planners to work with. Using JUICE for basic reconnaissance of Europan destinations would make Europan mission planners more confident in where they should flyby (even more important, since they have to set down a lander at a scientifically important place), not to mention wet the tongues of scientists and science nerds like. 2. The lower transit time means more science, as the components of the probe will not have to survive the approx. 6 extra years in deep space- meaning the critical components (like instruments and solar panels) will likely last longer, meaning more science overall! (Especially solar panels, which degrades under Jupiter's radiation belts, so you need them in tip top condition when they get there in the first place.) 3. Faster transit time also means faster science, allowing future missions to these icy moons to themselves take place earlier (if the budget allows it, or course. Castillo Orbiter anybody?). It's also better for scientists. There are disadvantages, though: 1. Higher Cost for launch (duh). Ariane V, the current JUICE launcher, costs $200 Million per launch, while the SLS Block I costs $500 million per launch (the Block IB is more costly, but cost per launch is unknown. Let's just say $700 Million. (Saturn V was about $1.5 Billion per launch, depending on the estimates) That's a 3.5 x greater cost per launch. 2. Less science from Venus and Asteroids, due to no Venus flybys on a direct trajectory to Jupiter, and only one pass through the asteroid belt via a direct trajectory, rather than 2 with VEEGA. 3. NASA would need to negotiate with ESA- they would need something in return for providing the free SLS launch. 4. Some planning and modifications to JUICE on ESA's side needs to be redone- however, this is likely not a huge issue, as JUICE is launching in 2022, 7 years into the future. Even if building the proposal, getting it approved, and the negotiation process takes 3 years, there are still 4 years to make changes to the probe- probably plenty of time. I propose that this SLS launch would be funded by having ESA build the now-required by Congress Europa Lander, while NASA gives ESA a free ride to Jupiter. So good idea or no? A poll has been set up for this tread.

Over the years, there have been many proposals to give ESA its own Crew Launch Capability- something that (in my opinion) ESA may be closer to this capability than ever before (even closer than the Hermes Era). However, budgets are cramped (as expected), so my proposal attempts to make this as cheap as possible to develop: Note: things in BOLD are the baseline proposal. My proposal would use a minimal-modification ESA Orion Service module as the base (and service module), launching fully fueled on an Ariane V ECA or ES (or Ariane 6 w/ 4 SRBs)- all which have a payload capacity of 21T to LEO, (however, a burn of the Orion CM does the final, orbital insertion burn, along with rendezvous and deorbit burns). The other components, the Launch Escape System (LES) and the Command Module (CM) would be basically European-made clones of the Orion CM and LES, respectively. (Building these parts in the US, is also an option, but would probably be a lot less politically palatable). This would be used in a few flights to the ISS, before moving to a new, European Space Station, based of the Columbus MTFF proposal:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/colrmtff.htm but (ASSUMING INFINITE THE MONEY IS AVAILABLE) be built with a front docking port (which would have a node-like adapter with a total of 6 available berthing ports (2 with adapters for crewed spacecraft, 1 for cargo deliveries, 1 by the connection to the Columbus Module, and 2 ports used by the airlock and an unpressurized experiments bay). Its crewed module would be a modernized Columbus module of the ISS, and use a Orion SM as its service module, located at the space station's aft (but with larger solar arrays and with radiators), which is also used for re-boosts (along with the crewed ESA-Orion and Cargo Vehicle) and life support. This space station (I call it the MTFF-2) would be launched fully fueled by a single, expendable Falcon Heavy (the MTFF-2 being 53T in mass)- in the case of mass overruns, the fuel would be launched separately, in cargo spacecraft. The Cargo Deliveries would be done by a newly-produced ATV, by a Progress Spacecraft (both which would require adapters to dock to the space station) or by a Cygnus. One question, despite all this would be if it could be funded. If S*** hits the fan, the ESA Crewed Spacecraft would be used for SpaceLab-like Science missions, with unpressurized science experiments located between the spacecraft adapter jettisoned panels and the Service Module. If money is somewhat more available however, the MTFF-2 would launch, but lack the node, airlock, unpressurized experiment bay (they would have to be carried next to the Orion SM if needed), only one docking port, and no cargo resupply vessels, and the space station would instead launch on a Reusable Falcon Heavy. THIS IS MY BASELINE PROPOSAL. Good, Dumb, or Impossible? Comment below!