NASA

Europa on five (hundred thousand) dollars a day

The good news for planetary scientists in NASA’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal is that the agency is seeking funding for the first time for “pre-formulation” work on a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, where some scientists speculate life could exist in oceans beneath the moon’s icy surface. The uncertain—and potentially bad—news for those scientists, though, is that proposed mission may not be nearly as big, and as scientifically compelling, as they would like.

The budget request includes only $15 million for the Europa mission planning, which is much smaller than the $80 million Congress earmarked for such work in the final FY14 spending bill; Congress also provided $75 million for Europa mission work in its FY13 spending bill. In both FY13 and FY14, though, NASA had not requested any funding for a Europa mission.

At the FY15 budget briefing Tuesday, NASA CFO Beth Robinson didn’t provide details about NASA would spend that $15 million, or how much the overall Europa mission itself would cost. “We are in that early pre-formulation state, so I know people have asked about the total size, and we’re frankly just not sure at this point,” she said. “We’re going to be going to the science community for different concepts to meet the central scientific goals that were laid out in the decadal [survey].” She did say she anticipated a launch of such a mission in the mid-2020s.

In the planetary science decadal survey, scientists identified a Europa orbiter mission as its second highest large, or flagship, mission priority, behind a Mars rover to cache samples for later return to Earth. However, the study estimated the cost of such a mission at $4.7 billion, which the study’s leaders said was too expensive, and recommended that the mission be descoped to lower its cost.

One approach to descoping that Europa orbiter mission is a concept called Europa Clipper. Instead of going into orbit around Europa, the spacecraft would go into orbit around Jupiter and make multiple flybys of Europa. Most recent cost estimates have pegged the mission at around $2.1 billion, which would keep it a flagship-class mission, albeit far less expensive that the orbiter concept in the decadal.

Comments a day after the budget rollout by NASA leadership, though, indicated that the agency is at least planning to look at Europa mission concepts that are much less expensive that even those lower-cost proposals. “We have committed to flying a mission to Europa in the decade of the 2020s,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden said during a question-and-answer session following a speech at the Goddard Memorial Symposium Wednesday in Greenbelt, Maryland. “What I’ve asked people to do is I want the science community to come together with industry, academia, and our international partners, and my desire, to be honest, would be to target a Europa mission that we could fly for a billion dollars or less.”

In a later panel at the conference, NASA associate administrator for science John Grunsfeld confirmed NASA’s interest in a relatively low-cost Europa mission, with plans to issue a request for information (RFI) for such mission concepts soon. “One of the things we’re going to do post haste is to put out an RFI for ideas, as Administrator Bolden said, for if we were to do a Europa mission at the New Frontiers category—about a billion dollars—what would you like to see, what what you do,” he said. “That’s part of forumlating the cost bogey for a Europa mission.” That request for information would be part of activities funded in FY14, and Grunsfeld added that some of the $80 million in FY14 funds earmarked for Europa would likely carry over into FY15 since it can’t be all be spend before the fiscal year ends.

The idea of a billion-dollar Europa mission has raised some eyebrows in the scientific community, who wonder if such a mission is even feasible given the technical challenges of flying to Europa and operating there in Jupiter’s strong radiation environment. There’s also the question of just how useful such a mission would be scientifically, if the lower cost reduces the payload of instruments it can carry.

Bolden, in his comments at the conference Wednesday, left open the possibility that a billion-dollar Europa mission might not be feasible. “That may or may not be possible,” he said, “because the one thing we don’t want to do is fly a mission of a certain amount of money that has no valuable scientific return.”

If it turns out that a scientifically usable and technically feasible Europa mission requires a budget of closer to $2 billion, like the Europa Clipper concept, with a launch in around 2025—11 years from now—that works out to an average cost of about $500,000 per day (if you’re wondering about the title of this post.)

24 comments to Europa on five (hundred thousand) dollars a day

  • amightywind

    If spacecraft size is an issue with the orbiter mission profile, SLS would be a good launch vehicle choice. Europa is certainly an interesting target. More interesting than Titan? No, not even close.

    • Hiram

      Spacecraft size is an issue mainly in spacecraft expense. That is, unless NASA is looking to dump a load of concrete on Europa. Concrete is cheap. Then an SLS would come in handy. Sending 50mT of concrete to Europa is exactly what SLS could do! Surely 50mT of concrete translates to scientific usability, doesn’t it? Technically feasible? Natch.

      • amightywind

        I haven’t seen any concepts for the Europa orbiter mission profile. I can only assume, and the posting implies, that it takes considerable delta V to maneuver a spacecraft within Jupiter’s gravity well. With SLS there is less need to take half measures and fly a reduced mission.

    • Neil Shipley

      Still floundering around for a mission for SLS? There are existing vehicles that can do the job. No need to fly a vapourware monster rocket.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    ARC/JPL studied Europa sample return before under the “Ice Clipper” concept for a ~$250M Discovery proposal back in 1996/7. The idea was to create an “ice geyser” with a 20kg copper impactor sent ahead of the spacecraft and then fly through the cloud with an aerogel screen (think Deep Impact crossed with Stardust). The “ice geyser” would not get very high, and the risk of flying that close to Europa on first approach was deemed too high and the proposal was rejected. But if confirmed, persistent, and of the right height, a naturally occurring Europa geyser may solve this problem.

    APL revisited the concept a decade later with a bigger, 100kg impactor and spectroscopy instead of sample return (think Deep Impact on steroids). But if applied to a sample return mission, the larger impactor had the twin benefits of allowing the capture spacecraft to fly higher and safer while also accessing deeper and more interesting ice layers from Europa.

    Not much exists on the web, but here’s an article on both studies:

    http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Go_Flagship_Class_By_Jove_999.html

    And some random Ice Clipper abstracts:

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/27403

    http://archive.is/BdqH

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117702004805

  • James

    Bolden: .”…would be to target a Europa mission that we could fly for a billion dollars or less.”

    Once again we see the impact of JWST on the rest of the science portfolio. Bolden is probably sticking his little finger up , into the wind, and measuring the acceptance from OMB/White House/Congress even? on the acceptability of something over a Billion and finding no reception for such an idea. Keeping it under a Billion also allows one to avoid the term ‘flag ship’ mantra.

    Thank you JWST

  • Egad

    “for if we were to do a Europa mission at the New Frontiers category—about a billion dollars—what would you like to see, what what you do,” [Bolden] said. “That’s part of forumlating the cost bogey for a Europa mission.”

    So does the billion dollars include full cost accounting for a government space launch vehicle for the mission, or just the SLV’s marginal cost? Either way, I’d like to see the cost for a SLS-launched version of a Europa mission.

    Or does the billion just pay for the mission payload and Unca Sam/NASA donates the SLV for free?

  • Hiram

    “So does the billion dollars include full cost accounting for a government space launch vehicle for the mission, or just the SLV’s marginal cost?”

    All SMD missions pay their way to space. At least ever since HST and Chandra got free rides, that is. Of course, such a New Frontiers class mission would be looking at an Atlas V 541-class launcher. Call that launcher cost $250M if it isn’t underbid by a Falcon 9. That means, of course, that the ~4 mT spacecraft would cost $750M. And you want a 30 mT one that would fill an SLS? Hilarious. Even if NASA paid for the SLS, the spacecraft cost would be astronomical.

    That’s the fallacy of SLS. No one can afford to use it, even if they get it for free. Unless they’re launching bricks or concrete, of course.

    • RockyMtnSpace

      “All SMD missions pay their way to space …”

      It is a bit more gray than that. For Discovery and New Frontiers missions, the cost cap does not include the LV, which NASA (writ large) provides as GFE to the mission. NASA negotiates LV prices across the board for all missions, planetary, astro/helio, earth science, etc. Last contract was NLS II.

      “That means, of course, that the ~4 mT spacecraft would cost $750M. And you want a 30 mT one that would fill an SLS? Hilarious. Even if NASA paid for the SLS, the spacecraft cost would be astronomical.”

      No. The S/C wouldn’t necessarily grow much, if at all. Rather, all that excess lift capacity is used to impart more delta-v to the s/c so that you can reduce the trip time to whatever the destination is. This can be done by eliminating the Earth and/or Venus gravity assists that are typically needed to increase the s/c velocity without having to carry enormous quantities of propellant. Shorter trip times also mean lower cost missions as it typically requires around $10M per month (or so) in ground ops and DSN time to operate a s/c. Shorten a mission by 18 months (typical EGA timeframe for a Jupiter bound mission) and you are saving $180M in Phase E costs.

      • Fred Willett

        Hmmmm. Let’s see. Cost of an Atlas $250M vs. saving $180M off an SLS cost of $1B.
        That’s a saving of -$570M.
        I get it.

        • RockyMtnSpace

          “Hmmmm. Let’s see. Cost of an Atlas $250M vs. saving $180M off an SLS cost of $1B. That’s a saving of -$570M.
          I get it.”

          True. I didn’t say it was a good idea to use SLS. SLS is a waste. It also isn’t true that the S/C cost will be “astronomical” as Hiram contends just because the LV is extraordinarily expensive.

          • Hiram

            “It also isn’t true that the S/C cost will be “astronomical” as Hiram contends just because the LV is extraordinarily expensive.”

            The S/C cost doesn’t scale with LV expense. It scales with the LV capacity. An SLS can loft far greater mass than an ELV can. The proportionality of mass to cost is the simplest and most stringent part of cost modelling (unless you’re using a lot of bricks and concrete in your spacefraft). As pointed out, there aren’t a lot of advantages in getting there fast. Another is that you have to slow down.

            By the way, the cost cap for at least a Discovery mission is $425M, and that *includes* the launch vehicle. Sure, you can say that LV is GFE in that the proposing team doesn’t have to go out on the street and find one, but it’s really embedded in the cost cap. You can’t even buy half of an SLS with that cost cap.

            Now, in NASA’s desperation to find a use for SLS (much as it was desperate to find a use for Shuttle), I wouldn’t put it past them to offer up a “free” SLS for such a mission. That is, at least SMD wouldn’t need to pay for it. But not only does that obligate SMD to fill the payload capacity, and pay accordingly, but it encourages development of a massive payload that offers few lessons to future, more fiscally constrained missions.

            • RockyMtnSpace

              “The S/C cost doesn’t scale with LV expense. It scales with the LV capacity.”

              No, it doesn’t. The S/C cost has nothing to do with the LV. The LV typically isn’t selected until the S/C is well into Phase C/D. During the proposal phase and Phase A/B (and we are talking NASA SMD missions here), the S/C has to be compatible with a class of LV’s. For ELV, this included Atlas, Delta, and Falcon.

              “By the way, the cost cap for at least a Discovery mission is $425M, and that *includes* the launch vehicle.”

              No, it doesn’t. For Discovery and NF, the cost cap explicitly excludes the LV and has for several cycles now. You need to do a little better research next time. Furthermore, the next Discovery mission will be capped at $450M based on the announcement of the release of the Draft AO that came out a couple of weeks ago. Here is the relevant text:

              “Investigations are capped at a Phase A-D cost of $450M (FY 2015), excluding standard launch services. The now-standard 25% minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within the cost cap.”

              Link is here:

          • Hiram

            I will add that New Frontiers cost cap is currently $1.05B including launch costs. That was understood to mean about $750M for costs that were managed by the PI team. The Planetary Decadal recommended that the cost cap for these missions be reset to a flat $1B excluding launch costs. That recommendation was largely based on the independent cost reviews of the four New Frontiers concepts presented to them. The handwriting on the wall was that $1.05B wouldn’t buy anything that we really wanted to do.

        • RockyMtnSpace

          One should also remember that JPL has already been give $150M+ over the last two years just to study the mission. That kind of pork is no different than the $’s being pumped into NASA centers for SLS. For $150M, industry could have already designed and built the spacecraft and have it ready to integrate with the science payloads. But this is JPL, who took a $650M MSL concept and parleyed it into a $2.8B boondoggle. Perhaps an astronomically expensive spacecraft isn’t out of the question after all.

  • James

    So, how far does a $1B mission go?
    Not sure if a Falcon 9 can do what the Europa mission would want, but if you assume ~$150M for a F9; then…

    If you lop off $150M from $1B, assuming no reserves on the Falcon 9, then lop off 30% reserves on all WBS’s, make some assumptions about the % of PM, Systems Engineering, Mission Assurance, Operations, etc. etc. one is left with about $410M for both the bus and instruments.

    I have no idea of bus costs for such a mission, but, lets say, oh $200M. That leaves $210M – not including 30% reserves – for instrumentation.

    So, any smart folks out there think a mission can be done for a $1B?

    • James

      and if one needs a $250M Atlas,,,well, then you are left with about $300M for instrumentation and bus.
      Good luck with that.

    • Neil Shipley

      No a F9 probably couldn’t but an FH could or a Raptor powered F9 which will probably (assuming SpaceX successful) be available by the time this mission actually gets to paying for a launch.

  • Vladislaw

    When a new mission like this is proposed, is every single part, instrument, bus, fuel tanks, wiring et cetera, et cetera all brand new and entirely REengineered from scratch?

    Is there no instruments that are just plugged in as an off the self design?

  • Hiram

    “Is there no instruments that are just plugged in as an off the self design?”

    You may have better shelves than I do. (Though “off the self” might be more appropriate.)

    As to science instruments, those are instruments that do new things. Off-the-shelf science instruments get you off-the-shelf science. Off-the-shelf science is indeed probably cheaper than cutting edge science.

    As to the spacecraft, new technologies give higher capabilities and reliability than old technologies do. Certainly “every single part” isn’t new, though these parts have to be assembled in new ways that guarantee performance at Europa. Power, thermal, comm, radiation — it’s all different at Europa than at Mars or Mercury. A design architecture that works for on-orbit imaging of Mars simply won’t work for Europa.

    The way I look at it is that each new mission is an opportunity to be creative with new technology. If the goal is shelf-cleaning, then that creativity isn’t exercised.

Leave a Reply to Fred Willett Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>