"Clipper" Standarised Flagship Probe Proposal

[fredinno]

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/35l4yzc.jpg[/IMG]

[B]This is my proposal for a standardized Flagship Probe for NASA. Most of the information is on the image itself[/B], but I would also like to add a few other things:

[B]-Saturn and Uranus Probes may still be able to solar panels, but they would have to be truely enormous.[/B]
-PROBES AND SOLAR PANELS NOT TO SCALE
[B]-I wonder if a modified, simplified bus could be used for New Frontiers missions (like Io Orbiter)...[/B]
[B]-Probes are all based off Europa Clipper as much as possible, to reduce costs.[/B]
-This was inspired by the "Mariner MK2" proposal.
[B]-Europa Clipper, Uranus Orbiter, and a potential future Titan Orbiter Mission are to be the first missions for this.[/B]

[fredinno]

I seem to have a problem with a lack of comments on my threads. :P

[sojourner]

A "one size fits all" type of standardization isn't really practical when weight is such a premium in design consideration for unmanned probes. One day, when the bottleneck to getting to orbit and beyond stops being weight limited, we'll be able to crank out designs that save money based on mass production.

[Bill Phil]

Hmm... Mariner managed to use a common bus for a few of its probes. Or more, I don't know how many exactly.

I don't see why not. Especially if the energy requirements for the missions have a high degree of similarity.

[Robotengineer]

The biggest issue with trying to standardize probes is that there isn't a 'one size fits all' sort of instrument set that would work on multiple probes. The only situation I can think of where that might work is to have twin Cassini like crafts, and send one to Neptune and the other to Uranus. Of course, any science mission is a compromise, and if you can get the scientific community to agree on a basic design, great! Otherwise, there is no point in saving a few bucks if it severely compromises the scientific capabilities of the mission and craft.

[Bill Phil]

I think it would be a modular instrument system...

[insert_name]

you appear to have these probes going on different launch systems, wolnt they need faring adapters placed differently on each, would this be a problem?

[Kryten]

Standardisation doesn't make a lot of sense when you're looking at something that would fly maybe once a decade. You'd have to replace so many out-of-production or otherwise obsolescent parts that they wouldn't actually be meaningfully standardised.

[Camacha]

[quote name='fredinno']
[B]-Probes are all based off Europa Clipper as much as possible, to reduce costs.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Did you calculate how much of a mission actually is probe customisation, and how much is the rest? Only then you can get an idea whether using less flexible standardized solutions is actually worth the hassle. If it costs more to launch your less efficient design, it is not a very productive endeavour.

[RainDreamer]

Can we use the same design for wildly different mission specs?

[jwenting]

[quote name='Kryten']Standardisation doesn't make a lot of sense when you're looking at something that would fly maybe once a decade. You'd have to replace so many out-of-production or otherwise obsolescent parts that they wouldn't actually be meaningfully standardised.[/QUOTE]

you could produce a batch of them and put them in storage, but yes.

The idea isn't practical. The cost of the mission is mostly determined by the cost of the launcher and support infrastructure, not the cost of the probe itself.
Which is why they had to reduce the size of the Pluto probe to fit on a smaller launcher. Probe got more expensive as it had to be partially redesigned and use more expensive components, but the cost was more than offset by saving hundreds of millions on the launcher.

Also of course, different missions have completely different requirements.
A mission to Mercury will need some serious shielding from solar glare and charged particles, but won't have a lack of sunlight for solar panels (it may in fact have too much).
A mission to Pluto (why not) otoh won't need as much radiation shielding but its power generation can't use solar panels for a good part of the flight because they're just not efficient enough out there.
A mission to the moon won't need much in the way of radio transmission power to send data back to earth. A mission to Uranus would need a lot of transmission power.
And if you go further out you need more accurate tracking systems on your radio transmitters because your transmission cone becomes far more prone to mission the earth.

[Kryten]

[quote name='jwenting']
The idea isn't practical. The cost of the mission is mostly determined by the cost of the launcher and support infrastructure, not the cost of the probe itself.
[/QUOTE]
Not true. Flagships are $1.5 billion+, there's not a launcher on the planet that costs remotely that much. New Frontiers missions like New Horizons are $1 billion, and typically get their rides on Atlas Vs, which even in the most inflated accounting are under $250 million. New Horizons had to grapple with Titan IV at $400 million early in the programme, but that's retired now.

[Camacha]

[quote name='Kryten']Not true. Flagships are $1.5 billion+, there's not a launcher on the planet that costs remotely that much. New Frontiers missions like New Horizons are $1 billion, and typically get their rides on Atlas Vs, which even in the most inflated accounting are under $250 million. New Horizons had to grapple with Titan IV at $400 million early in the programme, but that's retired now.[/QUOTE]

Is that total probe cost, or the costs of actual probe. That is quite a difference :)

[Kryten]

[quote name='Camacha']Is that total probe cost, or the costs of actual probe. That is quite a difference :)[/QUOTE]
Total cost for the probe and mission, excluding a 'standard' launcher for that class (Atlas 551 for flagship, ~Atlas 400 for Discovery, somewhere intermediate for NH). A mission that needs a more powerful launcher pays the excess.

[Robotengineer]

Also, for the launcher, why not use a F9 Heavy?

[fredinno]

[quote name='Bill Phil']Hmm... Mariner managed to use a common bus for a few of its probes. Or more, I don't know how many exactly.

I don't see why not. Especially if the energy requirements for the missions have a high degree of similarity.[/QUOTE]

Most of them were based off each other in one way or another. Making probes based off each other was a recurring theme to NASA in the past, and is today (to a lesser extent, in my opinion).

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='RainDreamer']Can we use the same design for wildly different mission specs?[/QUOTE]

They are all orbiters- landers and rovers are different. (Hmm, rovers...)

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='jwenting']you could produce a batch of them and put them in storage, but yes.

The idea isn't practical. The cost of the mission is mostly determined by the cost of the launcher and support infrastructure, not the cost of the probe itself.
Which is why they had to reduce the size of the Pluto probe to fit on a smaller launcher. Probe got more expensive as it had to be partially redesigned and use more expensive components, but the cost was more than offset by saving hundreds of millions on the launcher.

Also of course, different missions have completely different requirements.
A mission to Mercury will need some serious shielding from solar glare and charged particles, but won't have a lack of sunlight for solar panels (it may in fact have too much).
A mission to Pluto (why not) otoh won't need as much radiation shielding but its power generation can't use solar panels for a good part of the flight because they're just not efficient enough out there.
A mission to the moon won't need much in the way of radio transmission power to send data back to earth. A mission to Uranus would need a lot of transmission power.
And if you go further out you need more accurate tracking systems on your radio transmitters because your transmission cone becomes far more prone to mission the earth.[/QUOTE]

The decadal survey's estimates for a Uranus Orbiter shows most of the cost is the probe itself,by far.
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/blogs/van-kane/20130708_Uranus-budget.jpg

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='jwenting']you could produce a batch of them and put them in storage, but yes.

The idea isn't practical. The cost of the mission is mostly determined by the cost of the launcher and support infrastructure, not the cost of the probe itself.
Which is why they had to reduce the size of the Pluto probe to fit on a smaller launcher. Probe got more expensive as it had to be partially redesigned and use more expensive components, but the cost was more than offset by saving hundreds of millions on the launcher.

Also of course, different missions have completely different requirements.
A mission to Mercury will need some serious shielding from solar glare and charged particles, but won't have a lack of sunlight for solar panels (it may in fact have too much).
A mission to Pluto (why not) otoh won't need as much radiation shielding but its power generation can't use solar panels for a good part of the flight because they're just not efficient enough out there.
A mission to the moon won't need much in the way of radio transmission power to send data back to earth. A mission to Uranus would need a lot of transmission power.
And if you go further out you need more accurate tracking systems on your radio transmitters because your transmission cone becomes far more prone to mission the earth.[/QUOTE]

Also, new Horizons probably saved money be being reduced in size, as the only larger US rocket is the Delta IV Heavy, which costs a fortune. It's kind of a bad example.

And you just described why probe modifications would be necessary, which I was aware of.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Robotengineer']Also, for the launcher, why not use a F9 Heavy?[/QUOTE]

No mission has needed it so far, not to mention it hasn't been proven. Solar Probe Plus, launching on Delta IV Heavy, already is too late in development for Falcon Heavy, and NASA is still probably deciding the launchers for the other flagships, though the baselije for them is Delta IV Heavy, or SLS.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='sojourner']A "one size fits all" type of standardization isn't really practical when weight is such a premium in design consideration for unmanned probes. One day, when the bottleneck to getting to orbit and beyond stops being weight limited, we'll be able to crank out designs that save money based on mass production.[/QUOTE]

Deep space flagships,(which will likely constitute a good portion of future flagships) are almost certainly going to use SLS, which has an insane weight capability. Similar situation with the Falcon Heavy, for missions closer in.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='insert_name']you appear to have these probes going on different launch systems, wolnt they need faring adapters placed differently on each, would this be a problem?[/QUOTE]

Maybe.

[Findthepin1]

Why not make standardized parts instead of a whole probe? That way you could customize it more. Like if you wanted to send something to land on the Moon, and you wanted to send something to land on Phobos. That's about the same delta-v. However Phobos is much further away. Then the only needed major difference is the needed antenna (Phobos is far, much farther than Moon) and possibly a heat protected core piece (Moon is quite warm on dayside). Possibly other differences. Point is, you could make a bunch of standardized sizes for various parts of spacecraft and later bolt them together based on the mission specs.

[*Aqua*]

The questions seems to be: What is better - generalization or specialization?


Pro generalization
- lower cost due to mass production
- reduced development cost because you reuse proven designs

Contra
- reduced and/or superfluous capabilities because your new device have to fit the design pattern


Pro specialization
- maximized capabilities because you design the probe/devices according to the task
- no superfluous capabilities which are potential points of failure

Contra
- high development and production costs


Even if it looks like the requirements for exploration are always the same that's not true. A probe to Jupiter needs strong radiation shielding, a RTG as a powersupply, large antenna, etc. A probe to Mars 'only' needs some solar panels, smaller antenna, etc. Putting a Jupiter probe into Mars orbit is a huge waste of money.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='*Aqua*']The questions seems to be: What is better - generalization or specialization?


Pro generalization
- lower cost due to mass production
- reduced development cost because you reuse proven designs

Contra
- reduced and/or superfluous capabilities because your new device have to fit the design pattern


Pro specialization
- maximized capabilities because you design the probe/devices according to the task
- no superfluous capabilities which are potential points of failure

Contra
- high development and production costs


Even if it looks like the requirements for exploration are always the same that's not true. A probe to Jupiter needs strong radiation shielding, a RTG as a powersupply, large antenna, etc. A probe to Mars 'only' needs some solar panels, smaller antenna, etc. Putting a Jupiter probe into Mars orbit is a huge waste of money.[/QUOTE]

I think that solar panels are still pretty sufficient at Jupiter. Or Juno is in trouble.

[fredinno]

[quote name='More Boosters']I think that solar panels are still pretty sufficient at Jupiter. Or Juno is in trouble.[/QUOTE]

They are. Rosetta has been running "so far so good" at similar distances, and near a comet, where the dust will block out much of the Sun.

[Kryten]

Europa clipper is probably not suited to be the basis of this, given the radiation environment it has to deal with. I've seen estimates from people who know what they're talking about that a Europa probe would cost about twice as much as an equivalent probe to somewhere else from radiation alone.

[*Aqua*]

[quote name='More Boosters']I think that solar panels are still pretty sufficient at Jupiter. Or Juno is in trouble.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='fredinno']They are. Rosetta has been running "so far so good" at similar distances, and near a comet, where the dust will block out much of the Sun.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't invalidate my argument. The point is currently you'll waste a ton of money if you use overengineered probes.

If you launch a probe per week then mass production could save you money but we are nowhere near that pace.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Kryten']Europa clipper is probably not suited to be the basis of this, given the radiation environment it has to deal with. I've seen estimates from people who know what they're talking about that a Europa probe would cost about twice as much as an equivalent probe to somewhere else from radiation alone.[/QUOTE]

Oh, ok. Thanks for the feedback- maybe Uranus Orbiter would work better? (Though the low Sun environment might make this unsuitable too.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='*Aqua*']That doesn't invalidate my argument. The point is currently you'll waste a ton of money if you use overengineered probes.

If you launch a probe per week then mass production could save you money but we are nowhere near that pace.[/QUOTE]

But Mars 2020 was made so that it would be derived off Curiosity, reducing its costs.

So, a Discovery standardised orbiter would be better?

I know this is a little off topic, but would a standardised set of 3 100kg probes, all equipped with commercial ion drives doing basic NEO recon by flying by them be worth it and useful? How expensive would it be- I'm hoping for 250 Million.

[SgtSomeone]

[quote name='fredinno']

But Mars 2020 was made so that it would be derived off Curiosity, reducing its costs.

So, a Discovery standardised orbiter would be better?

I know this is a little off topic, but would a standardised set of 3 100kg probes, all equipped with commercial ion drives doing basic NEO recon by flying by them be worth it and useful? How expensive would it be- I'm hoping for 250 Million.[/QUOTE]

I'm still getting up to speed on all this space stuff since I started playing KSP (time well-wasted?) but I believe the Mars2020 decisions revolved around "hey, we have these spare parts, let's use them" more than an initial "let's design a re-usable rover".

I think it makes sense to copy-and-modify an existing design if you're going to be doing a very similar mission profile, but given that a) very similar missions don't happen very often and b) Operating environments for missions that are different are so different that it's cheaper overall to just re-design the probe, having a standardized probe architecture probably isn't worth designing. I do think that the standardized 'modular' design has merit.

Where you do see multiple missions with similar profiles is communication satellites in GEO and LEO and there are already companies fitting the niche with standardized architectures ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_702[/url]) but even in this relatively-common environment, there is a lot of customization

tl;dr until we start launching probe-trains to the same destination every other week, standardization of an entire architecture doesn't make economic sense, but there may be value in doing some module standardizaton.

[Workable Goblin]

[quote name='SgtSomeone']I think it makes sense to copy-and-modify an existing design if you're going to be doing a very similar mission profile, but given that a) very similar missions don't happen very often and b) Operating environments for missions that are different are so different that it's cheaper overall to just re-design the probe, having a standardized probe architecture probably isn't worth designing.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. In fact, there was a substantial effort in the 1980s to create "standard" probe designs for large and medium/small missions, the Mariner Mark II and Observer-class spacecraft, because people back then thought that standardization might help save money. In fact, this meant that you had designs poorly suited to their missions (for instance, they were planning on launching Cassini and a mission they called CRAF which was basically Rosetta on the same Mariner Mark II bus, which forced a lot of awkward compromises on the design), and, in the event, there wasn't the budget to launch more than one probe of the same type anyways. Of the first two Mariner Mark II missions, CRAF was killed relatively soon, while all of the Observer missions except Mars Observer also soon went away.

And...well...Mars Observer also tried to use standard communications satellite designs to save money. It, uh, didn't go too well (it blew up while entering Mars orbit). The only good part about the whole saga was that Mars Observer paid for all of the instruments that went on Mars Global Surveyor, which is a good part of why that mission was so very cheap (seriously, compare the two missions and you'll see that their instrument suites were virtually isomorphic).