So here's my idea for a Sedna mission... HEAR ME OUT ON THIS

[fredinno]

Space exploration is not that expensive. A group of jerks has stolen 2.16 billion Euros from people in my country, Slovakia, or 2.32 billion Euros. That is not conjecture, but amount of money that is being officially discussed in the court proceedings with the people who cheated a big number of people from their money. That is like 3 New Horizon missions. It is a huge travesty that NASA has less money for one mission than a bunch of thieves from a post-communist country of just 6 million people. People who see the word millions and think how expensive space exploration is have no idea about what kind of money are spent in budgets of whole states. After India's MOM mission was launched, many people were condemning India because it is a third world country where many are starving. But let us be honest, would this money really go to the people in such a corrupt country? This amount of money would hardly save the whole India. The whole mission has cost 73 million USD. There are private individuals who would be able to fund something like that from their own pocket, hell, there are mansions more expensive than that. The funding of NASA is a travesty, by all means, space exploration is the cheapest part of a national budget.

Europa is interesting, but without a "ground truth" probe with a drill and a microscope there will be no definite real proof of life, just "maybe this maybe that". Same with Mars, the only probe that actually had a (very primitive) apparatus to detect life was the Viking Lander, which landed on a random location and the apparatus was so unreliable it couldn't detect life in Antartica or desert on Earth despite life being present in those samples. Instead of doing half hearted searches and obsessing over possible microbes, maybe we should go somewhere unseen and unexpected. Maybe I am weird, but I do not think space exploration should be a desperate search for life in our immediate neighbourhood. If you want to do that, at least do it right. Send out probes that can actually detect life.

The 'jerks' actually stole the equivilent of about 3.5 New Horizons, or approx. 5 DAWN space probes. The layter amount moght actually justify building more Delta IIs, and reviving LC-17 to launch the probes.

I think it's still a little premature to send a probe designed to detect life- I think we should wait about a decade for the current probes, ExoMars, and Mars 2020 to send more data before sending a lander designed to find martian life- we're not realy sure where to look, and even discovery probes cost $500 million. What happens when a lander is sent, with modern equipment for finds glife, then finds nothing? That's $500 million down the drain money that could have been sent exploring Venus or Metallic asteroids.

- - - Updated - - -

I think most people are also not interested in getting ripped off, yet even rip off artists get more money than space exploration. It also depends on the culture and education - my mom grew up in USSR's countryside in conditions a lot more modest than what majority of people here ever lived in, but they had Astronomy as a separate subject in school, visited planetariums etc. I am not somebody to defend a country like the USSR with the obvious many faults and crimes of its goverment, but I think people should be educated and have a certain "general knowledge". I personally think the modern world is being harmed by the focus of society on the fictional and artificial entertainment instead of reality. I think our future is in space and that knowledge uplifts the human spirit and this is one of the few things I must say I agree with the USSR's idea on this issue. Sure, you don't need to know anything about space. Technically speaking we don't even need higher intelligence as most creatures do okay without it. However, I think such an existence would be a very impoverished one. Furthermore, even in a democracy, mob rule should not set the priorities. NASA and other space agencies deserve enough money to be able to fulfill their scientific goals. I don't think the Average Joe wants fighter jets either yet they are even more expensive than spacecraft. There are many things that are funded that the average person wants less than spaceships.

Also, the power problem could be solved by a nuclear reactor. It was tried before by the USSR.

Good luck convincing people that sending a fully functioning reactor to space is a good idea. Never mind that SNAP (the American space nuclear reactor prototype) would require LOTS of money to complete, sending a Sedna probe to flagship cowt territory. Never mind that you also need radiators.

- - - Updated - - -

This would either use Americium RTGs, ASRGs, or replace the ice giant orbiter.

The upper mass limit is about 500-600 tons.

The scientific payload would include a spectrometer, camera, and dust counter.

500-600 TONS is quite a bit larger than the ISS. What are you sending up there, anyways.

Edited November 8, 2015 by fredinno

[Findthepin1]

fredinno said:

500-600 TONS is quite a bit larger than the ISS. What are you sending up there, anyways.

The ISS weighs 450 tons. It's not that far off.

Assuming the probe will be travelling at solar escape velocity at the time of the flyby, are there any stars that it will pass significantly close to (say 0.2 LY) after the intercept and succeeding escape? We could put a message or something on it on the off chance that something'll pick it up. The proposed trajectory seems well plotted, I assume we know the direction of the trajectory after escape.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Findthepin1
oops

[Caroliano]

Can't we make a standartized orbital probe for objects from Jupiter onwards and "mass-produce" it? There are lots of places to go, and it should reduce the costs by some.

[fredinno]

The ISS weighs 450 tons. It's not that far off.

Assuming the probe will be travelling at solar escape velocity at the time of the flyby, are there any stars that it will pass significantly close to after the intercept and succeeding escape? We could put a message or something on it on the off chance that maybe something'll pick it up. The trajectory seems well plotted, I assume we know the direction of the trajectory after escape.

Trolling isn't allowed here.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't we make a standartized orbital probe for objects from Jupiter onwards and "mass-produce" it? There are lots of places to go, and it should reduce the costs by some.

I have a proposal for that in my drawing book, just wait till I have the time to post it on here.

It's called the 'Clipper', and makes future orbiter probes mostly based off or Europa Clipper's probe bus, along with other equipment, like solar panels.

[fredinno]

Here's a suggestion for OP: If Block IB SLS is not large enough to launch the Sedna mission, then add a STAR-48 as a 3rd stage. If that's not enough, then add an IUS as the third stage, and the STAR-48 as a 4th stage.

The latter option would require modifications to the launch infrastructure though, so I'm not entirely sure if that's a good idea.

I wish we still were using Agenas....

[_Augustus_]

The 'jerks' actually stole the equivilent of about 3.5 New Horizons, or approx. 5 DAWN space probes. The layter amount moght actually justify building more Delta IIs, and reviving LC-17 to launch the probes.

I think it's still a little premature to send a probe designed to detect life- I think we should wait about a decade for the current probes, ExoMars, and Mars 2020 to send more data before sending a lander designed to find martian life- we're not realy sure where to look, and even discovery probes cost $500 million. What happens when a lander is sent, with modern equipment for finds glife, then finds nothing? That's $500 million down the drain money that could have been sent exploring Venus or Metallic asteroids.

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck convincing people that sending a fully functioning reactor to space is a good idea. Never mind that SNAP (the American space nuclear reactor prototype) would require LOTS of money to complete, sending a Sedna probe to flagship cowt territory. Never mind that you also need radiators.

- - - Updated - - -

500-600 TONS is quite a bit larger than the ISS. What are you sending up there, anyways.

I meant kg, sorry.

Assuming the probe will be travelling at solar escape velocity at the time of the flyby, are there any stars that it will pass significantly close to (say 0.2 AU) after the intercept and succeeding escape? We could put a message or something on it on the off chance that something'll pick it up. The proposed trajectory seems well plotted, I assume we know the direction of the trajectory after escape.

Hmm, would have to look into that. Sedna is in Cetus, gotta look at what nearby stars are there.

Can't we make a standartized orbital probe for objects from Jupiter onwards and "mass-produce" it? There are lots of places to go, and it should reduce the costs by some.

Trolling isn't allowed here.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a proposal for that in my drawing book, just wait till I have the time to post it on here.

It's called the 'Clipper', and makes future orbiter probes mostly based off or Europa Clipper's probe bus, along with other equipment, like solar panels.

If anyone could draw that with RTGs, it would be great. Does it fit my mass limit though?

Here's a suggestion for OP: If Block IB SLS is not large enough to launch the Sedna mission, then add a STAR-48 as a 3rd stage. If that's not enough, then add an IUS as the third stage, and the STAR-48 as a 4th stage.

The latter option would require modifications to the launch infrastructure though, so I'm not entirely sure if that's a good idea.

I wish we still were using Agenas....

Block II is definitely gonna be flown, but I will consider the STAR-48.

But what if they have retired it by then?

I miss Agena too.

UPDATE - Unfortunately there are no stars in Cetus that are less than 50 ly away, which means that WISPIE would not pass near anything in the forseeable future after Sedna.

Edited November 8, 2015 by _Augustus_

[Robotengineer]

Another issue might be how much useful data you could actually get given that the fly-by would have to be over in the blink of an eye in order to have an intercept in time for the people who launched/designed it to still be around for the fly-by.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Robotengineer
'be have to be'? Must have written this whilst drowsy.

[_Augustus_]

Another issue might be how much useful data you could actually get given that the fly-by be have to be over in the blink of an eye in order to have an intercept in time for the people who launched/designed it to still be around for the fly-by.

Let's do some math, shall we?

Sedna will be about 84 AU from the Sun at launch in 2030.

We need to travel ~80 AU in 20 years.

That requires a speed of 19686 m/s.

So, with some rough guessing, this means that our flyby will actually be about the same length if not longer than the New Horizons Pluto flyby.

[fredinno]

I meant kg, sorry.

Hmm, would have to look into that. Sedna is in Cetus, gotta look at what nearby stars are there.

If anyone could draw that with RTGs, it would be great. Does it fit my mass limit though?

Block II is definitely gonna be flown, but I will consider the STAR-48.

But what if they have retired it by then?

I miss Agena too.

UPDATE - Unfortunately there are no stars in Cetus that are less than 50 ly away, which means that WISPIE would not pass near anything in the forseeable future after Sedna.

On my version, no, since the probes are based off Europa Clipper. I don't really have time to post it in the next few days though.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant kg, sorry.

Hmm, would have to look into that. Sedna is in Cetus, gotta look at what nearby stars are there.

If anyone could draw that with RTGs, it would be great. Does it fit my mass limit though?

Block II is definitely gonna be flown, but I will consider the STAR-48.

But what if they have retired it by then?

I miss Agena too.

UPDATE - Unfortunately there are no stars in Cetus that are less than 50 ly away, which means that WISPIE would not pass near anything in the forseeable future after Sedna.

STAR-48 will probably not be retired, those motors are cheap and have existed for many years. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if a 'STAR-56' began production

- - - Updated - - -

Let's do some math, shall we?

Sedna will be about 84 AU from the Sun at launch in 2030.

We need to travel ~80 AU in 20 years.

That requires a speed of 19686 m/s.

So, with some rough guessing, this means that our flyby will actually be about the same length if not longer than the New Horizons Pluto flyby.

20 years is probably too long though, how about 15 years? The probe would have to be designed to last that much longer.

[Caroliano]

In a related question, how much delta-v would be needed to enter in orbit of sedna, as opposed to a flyby, in 10~15 years of travel time? Accounting for the much lower than ideal thrust of ion engines and possibly a Jupiter gravity assist. Has anyone done this calculation?

I guess it is probably the most challenging out of all round bodies on our solar system because the distance (and thus time constraints) and lack of atmosphere. I can only find delta-v figures for traditional hohmann transfers, where it surprisingly don't seems the hardest thing to get an orbit for IIRC.

[_Augustus_]

On my version, no, since the probes are based off Europa Clipper. I don't really have time to post it in the next few days though.

- - - Updated - - -

STAR-48 will probably not be retired, those motors are cheap and have existed for many years. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if a 'STAR-56' began production

- - - Updated - - -

20 years is probably too long though, how about 15 years? The probe would have to be designed to last that much longer.

That would require a faster-than-NH launch, which might not be good for the probe.

In a related question, how much delta-v would be needed to enter in orbit of sedna, as opposed to a flyby, in 10~15 years of travel time? Accounting for the much lower than ideal thrust of ion engines and possibly a Jupiter gravity assist. Has anyone done this calculation?

I guess it is probably the most challenging out of all round bodies on our solar system because the distance (and thus time constraints) and lack of atmosphere. I can only find delta-v figures for traditional hohmann transfers, where it surprisingly don't seems the hardest thing to get an orbit for IIRC.

About as much delta-v as to get there in the first place due to it's low mass, so probably not feasible. SEP is just not that powerful or viable out there.

[Caroliano]

I have a proposal for that in my drawing book, just wait till I have the time to post it on here.

It's called the 'Clipper', and makes future orbiter probes mostly based off or Europa Clipper's probe bus, along with other equipment, like solar panels.

Interesting. I have not been following this, but this seems the second solar powered probe to Jupiter. I was assuming that we were still using RTGs for those probes, which is why I suggested a unified probe for Jupiter and beyond.

Researching a little, it seems solar power is being considered even for Uranus missions (Source). Solar power for those missions seems to make things cheaper but heavier. But I believe that the main thing we should always optimize for is cost so it is a good direction. A sedna probe would need to use RTGs though so it is kinda off-topic...

I still think we could reduce the price and danger of making and manipulating RTGs with scale, as we would be able to automatize more of it. It is easier to justify constructing machines to help the montage of 20+ crafts than a single one. Space crafts aren't costly by magic, it is because each need many, many qualified human hours of work.

Here's a suggestion for OP: If Block IB SLS is not large enough to launch the Sedna mission, then add a STAR-48 as a 3rd stage. If that's not enough, then add an IUS as the third stage, and the STAR-48 as a 4th stage.

We don't need super-heavy rockets for those deep-space probe missions. What we need is in-orbit refueling technology that could be developed for much less (and should be developed regardless).

Just launch the probe and the empty booster stage (maybe in two separate launches if necessary) to LEO in medium-lift rockets, and then launch a few refueling missions to fill it up. Bonus points if you make this booster stage an reusable tug for the 20+ missions we should be doing, thus reducing the unit cost even more.

[fredinno]

That would require a faster-than-NH launch, which might not be good for the probe.

About as much delta-v as to get there in the first place due to it's low mass, so probably not feasible. SEP is just not that powerful or viable out there.

So? the probe will be going even faster when it flybys Jupiter (assuming a Jupiter flyby). The only damage I can think of is debris and acceleration damage.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. I have not been following this, but this seems the second solar powered probe to Jupiter. I was assuming that we were still using RTGs for those probes, which is why I suggested a unified probe for Jupiter and beyond.

Researching a little, it seems solar power is being considered even for Uranus missions (Source). Solar power for those missions seems to make things cheaper but heavier. But I believe that the main thing we should always optimize for is cost so it is a good direction. A sedna probe would need to use RTGs though so it is kinda off-topic...

I still think we could reduce the price and danger of making and manipulating RTGs with scale, as we would be able to automatize more of it. It is easier to justify constructing machines to help the montage of 20+ crafts than a single one. Space crafts aren't costly by magic, it is because each need many, many qualified human hours of work.

We don't need super-heavy rockets for those deep-space probe missions. What we need is in-orbit refueling technology that could be developed for much less (and should be developed regardless).

Just launch the probe and the empty booster stage (maybe in two separate launches if necessary) to LEO in medium-lift rockets, and then launch a few refueling missions to fill it up. Bonus points if you make this booster stage an reusable tug for the 20+ missions we should be doing, thus reducing the unit cost even more.

Aren't Solar Panels useless beyond Saturn's orbit?

[Caroliano]

Aren't Solar Panels useless beyond Saturn's orbit?

See the study I linked. Some would call they useless already beyond Jupter orbit. The study projects that 400W power generation in Uranus would weight 781kg in solar panels (you can round up to 1 ton). A lot, but still feasible.

Just to put in perspective, that same solar power array would generate 232kW on earth's orbit. So, about 500 times less efficient on Uranus.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Caroliano

[_Augustus_]

So? the probe will be going even faster when it flybys Jupiter (assuming a Jupiter flyby). The only damage I can think of is debris and acceleration damage.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't Solar Panels useless beyond Saturn's orbit?

True, but debris damage is a concern.

Jupiter would be used to throw the probe into an Oberth-effect sungrazer orbit.

And yes, solar panels are pretty useless beyond Saturn unless you bring inflatable solar panels..

[meve12]

See the study I linked. Some would call they useless already beyond Jupter orbit. The study projects that 400W power generation in Uranus would weight 781kg in solar panels (you can round up to 1 ton). A lot, but still feasible.

Just to put in perspective, that same solar power array would generate 232kW on earth's orbit. So, about 500 times less efficient on Uranus.

Would it be a good idea to use a solar-ion stage for a mission to the outer gas giants? You could use the solar panels to power the ion engines close to Earth, and also power the probe at your destination. Might save on mass over chemical engines.

[_Augustus_]

Would it be a good idea to use a solar-ion stage for a mission to the outer gas giants? You could use the solar panels to power the ion engines close to Earth, and also power the probe at your destination. Might save on mass over chemical engines.

SEP is an unproven technology that on large scales is too cost-prohibitive. Why use it when the SLS by itself works just fine?

[fredinno]

SEP is an unproven technology that on large scales is too cost-prohibitive. Why use it when the SLS by itself works just fine?

How about using a Larger SRB stage, like a Peacekeeper 3rd stage to increase delta-v, then aStar-48, to increase delta-v?

[_Augustus_]

How about using a Larger SRB stage, like a Peacekeeper 3rd stage to increase delta-v, then aStar-48, to increase delta-v?

Sounds good..

[fredinno]

Sounds good..

The 3rd stage is 8.2T mass, and STAR-48 is 2.14T in mass. Should offer a significant increase in Delta-V than just using a STAR-48, as Block II is desgined to launch heavier payloads anyways...

I think this could allow Falcon Heavy to launch Europa Clipper with 10% margin....

[_Augustus_]

The 3rd stage is 8.2T mass, and STAR-48 is 2.14T in mass. Should offer a significant increase in Delta-V than just using a STAR-48, as Block II is desgined to launch heavier payloads anyways...

I think this could allow Falcon Heavy to launch Europa Clipper with 10% margin....

Yes, but SpaceX doesn't like it when their competitors' stuff is used alongside their hardware.

[fredinno]

Yes, but SpaceX doesn't like it when their competitors' stuff is used alongside their hardware.

OrbitalATK isn't really competing against SpaceX for space launches, and using upper stages for a single launch is probably acceptable for the few missions that need it.

[Interplanet Janet]

I have another suggestion: a Sedna impactor to be deployed within a couple of hours of the Sedna flyby. The blast will probably be spectacular, with a projectile traveling with a gargantuan relative velocity.

Also, what about a Neptune flyby? I read that there was the possibility of a Neptune flyby in 2056 for W.I.S.P.I.E., but what is youroptimal launch window, within a century from now?

Edited November 30, 2015 by Interplanet Janet

[_Augustus_]

[quote name='Interplanet Janet']I have another suggestion: a [B]Sedna impactor[/B] to be deployed within a [B]couple of hours[/B] of the [B]Sedna flyby[/B]. The [B]blast [/B]will probably be [B]spectacular[/B], with a [B]projectile [/B]traveling with a [B]gargantuan relative velocity[/B].

Also, what about a [B]Neptune flyby[/B]? I read that there was the possibility of a Neptune flyby in [B]2056[/B] for W.I.S.P.I.E., but what is your [B]optimal launch window[/B], within a century from now?[/QUOTE] I don't know, but an impactor sounds good.

[Workable Goblin]

[quote name='_Augustus_']SEP is an unproven technology that on large scales is too cost-prohibitive. Why use it when the SLS by itself works just fine?[/QUOTE]
SEP is not an unproven technology, where are you getting this from? Besides three different probes that have demonstrated this technology, off the top of my head (Deep Space 1, SMART-1, and Dawn), there are dozens of satellites in Earth orbit that use SEP extensively or even exclusively for attitude control, due to the high ISP of electric rockets. It's about as well proven, at this point, as anything else in the rocket business. So are power generation systems of the needed size, given that similarly-sized systems are in wide use on modern communications satellites.

You should read the [URL="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_059331"]studies[/URL] that were presented to the Space Science Board for the last decadal survey in 2011, especially the one for [URL="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/webpage/ssb_059323.pdf"]ice giants orbiters[/URL] (PDF) before dismissing it. It's a serious, viable option for providing a large portion of the delta-V needed for missions to Uranus or Neptune. The trick is to use it as a boost stage, essentially supplementing or replacing gravity assists, so that you only need it to function in the inner solar system. A chemical system can then handle orbital injection. Overall, the SEP offers a very attractive method of reducing launch mass (i.e., costs) and, in some ways, simplifying mission design and operations, which is why there have been a fair number of proposals involving it lately.

Oh, and why not use SLS? Because SLS costs a billion dollars or more per launch, and Science Mission Directorate will never, ever, ever agree to using it if they have to pay for it.

EDIT: To be a bit more helpful, you might want to take a look at what Ralph McNutt and his team have been doing with interstellar probes for the last ten years or so. They have a similar problem to you (going a long ways, fast), and probably a lot more resources to figure out how to do it, no offense. Their trick is to use flybys (usually just one, a Jupiter assist if at all possible) and a radioisotope electric propulsion system to achieve very high flight speed. This will call for a LOT of plutonium, though... Edited November 27, 2015 by Workable Goblin