baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) (11/07/89)
Future Space Missions
1989 Missions
o Cosmic Background Explorer (CBE)
Launched by expendable rocket in November 1989, The CBE's mission is to
measure space radiation, possibly from the "Big Bang".
1990 Missions
o Roentgen Satellite
To be launched by expendable rocket in February, the Roentgen will study
X-ray emissions from stars and galaxies.
o Hubble Space Telescope
Space Shuttle launch in March, it will study the universe for 15 years
or longer. From above the Earth's obscuring atmosphere, it will "see"
planets, stars, and other objects in the universe about 10 times better
than now possible with the best telescopes on the ground.
o Astronomy/Broad Band X-Ray Telescope
In March, to be carried aboard a shuttle, this telescope will obtain
ultraviolet and X-ray data on stars.
o Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO)
April, shuttle, this space observatory will investigate black holes,
neutron stars and other gamma-ray emitters.
o Space Life Sciences Lab
June, on-board shuttle lab will be the first in a series on US missions
to study to effects of weightlessness.
o Combined Release and Radiation Satellite
June, expendable rocket will study the effects of radiation on
spacecraft components.
o Ulysses
Octobter by rocket, will study the sun and its emissions and will use
a Jupiter gravity assist.
1991 Missions
o Tethered Satellite System
January, shuttle, attached by tether to the shuttle bay, system will
study electrical fields and gas clouds in space while demonstrating the
capabilities of deploying and retrieving a tethered satellite.
o International Micrograving Lab
February, shuttle lab will set up systems for life-science studies.
o Atmospheric Lab for Applications and Science (ATLAS)
May, shuttle, this manned lab will study variations in the solar
spectrum and Earth's atmosphere.
o Spacelab
July aboard shuttle, carry out low-gravity experiments.
o Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer
August, rocket, this satellite will study the evolution and population
of stars and galaxies.
o Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS)
October, shuttle launch, will study upper atmosphere chemistry.
o Small Explorer-1
November, first in a series of rocket launches to study space physics
and atmospheric science.
1992 Missions
o Space Radar Lab
May shuttle, gather radar images of Earth's surface.
o TOPEX/Poseidon
June rocket, TOPEX will study the relationship of ocean systems to
climate.
o Mars Observer
September by rocket, to study Mars' climate and surface.
o Shuttle High-Energy Astrophysics Lab
September, on-board shuttle study of space X-ray sources.
1993 Missions
o Gravity Probe
June, shuttle launch, prototype mission to test Einstein's theory that
space is curved.
o Polar Orbiting Satellite
June, measure solar wind and ions and gases surrounding the Earth.
o Waves in Space Plasma
November, shuttle attached antennae that will send out radio waves to
measure the ionosphere.
Proposed Missions:
o Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility (AXAF)
Possible launch from shuttle in 1995, AXAF is a space observatory with a
high resolution telescope. It would orbit for 15 years and study the
mysteries and fate of the universe.
o Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF)
Possible launch in 1995, a deep space probe to comet Kopff to study it
in detail for 3 years.
o Earth Observing System (EOS)
Possible launch in 1997, 1 of 6 US orbiting space platforms to provide
long-term data (15 years) of Earth systems science including planetary
evolution.
o Cassini
Possible launch in 1996, orbiter would spend 4 years studying Saturn and
send an atmospheric probe into the moon Titan.
o Mercury Observer
Possible 1997 launch.
o Lunar Observer
Possible 1997 launch, would be sent into a long-term lunar orbit. The
Observer, from 60 miles above the moon's poles, would survey
characteristics to provide a global context for the results from the
Apollo program.
o Space Infrared Telescope Facility
Possible launch by shuttle in 1999, this is the 4th element of the Great
Observatories program. A free-flying observatory with a lifetime of 5 to
10 years, it would observe new comets and other primitive bodies in the
outer solar system, study cosmic birth formation of galaxies, stars and
planets and distant infrared-emitting galaxies
o Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR)
Robotics rover would return samples of Mars' atmosphere and surface to
Earch for analysis. Possible launch dates: 1996 for imaging orbiter,
2001 for rover.
o Fire and Ice
Possible launch in 2001, will use a gravity assist flyby of Earth in
2003, and use a final gravity assist from Jupiter in 2005, where the
probe will split into its Fire and Ice components: The Fire probe
will journey into the Sun, taking measurements of our star's upper
atmosphere until it is vaporized by the intense heat. The Ice probe
will head out towards Pluto, reaching the tiny world for study by 2016.
Ron Baalke | (818) 541-2341 x260
Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
4800 Oak Grove Dr. |
Pasadena, CA 91109 |lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) (11/08/89)
In article <2086@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > Future Space Missions > > o Cassini > Possible launch in 1996, orbiter would spend 4 years studying Saturn and > send an atmospheric probe into the moon Titan. > > o Fire and Ice > Possible launch in 2001, will use a gravity assist flyby of Earth in > 2003, and use a final gravity assist from Jupiter in 2005, where the > probe will split into its Fire and Ice components: The Fire probe > will journey into the Sun, taking measurements of our star's upper > atmosphere until it is vaporized by the intense heat. The Ice probe > will head out towards Pluto, reaching the tiny world for study by 2016. I have heard that Cassini will also use an Earth flyby to gain speed. I assume this means that these probes are using underpowered boosters and launching from the shuttle, as was the case with Galileo. This was done with Galileo because it was too late - or would cost too much, or the probe was too heavy - to refit the probe for launch on an ELV with a Centaur upper stage. But WHY in heavens name is JPL sticking to this method for probes planned for far in the future? Galileo will take six? years to reach Jupiter this way; it should have taken two. The other probes will likewise take years longer to reach their destinations by using this technique. Why aren't there plans to use appropriate boosters? --Larry -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg
conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) (11/10/89)
In article <2086@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > Future Space Missions What you really mean is "Future US Space Missions" ... -- Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK. UK: conor@inmos.co.uk US: conor@inmos.com "It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/12/89)
In article <5569@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary,ho,) writes: >I have heard that Cassini will also use an Earth flyby to gain speed. >I assume this means that these probes are using underpowered boosters >and launching from the shuttle, as was the case with Galileo... > WHY in heavens name is JPL sticking to this method for probes planned > for far in the future?... >... Why aren't there plans to use appropriate boosters? Because there are none. Although it is fashionable to malign the Shuttle as a planetary launcher, the Shuttle/IUS combination is the heaviest booster available (outside the Soviet Union). Titan/Centaur is in second place by a considerable margin. Shuttle/Centaur would be better, Shuttle-C/Centaur would be still better, and a stretched-tank Centaur fuelled in orbit would be better yet... but the first was cancelled, the second is just a gleam in the planners' eyes, and the last isn't even being planned. The only available-now launcher that could do a better job on Cassini would be Energia. The Soviets have no superstitious fear of cryogenic upper stages, and they will happily quote a price to put 200 tons -- eight times the Shuttle payload, enough for a lot of Centaurs -- in low orbit using an 8-strapon Energia. If you're absolutely determined not to use something that hasn't flown, they'll quote a price for 75 tons or so using the off-the-shelf 4-strapon Energia. NASA is not going to ask. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/12/89)
In article <1989Nov12.001720.6482@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The only available-now launcher that could do a better job on Cassini >would be Energia. The Soviets have no superstitious fear of cryogenic >upper stages ... Whoa, neither do we, if we're talking upper stages on unmanned boosters. The knock on Shuttle/Centaur was taking that cryogenic upper stage up on the flatbed of a human crewed truck! It was the astronaut office, not armchair critics, that nicknamed it the "Death Star". Who got it cancelled? A couple of guys named Young and Crippen... Let's take bets on how eager the Soviets would be to take a Centaur up inside Buran. Of course THEY could do it unmanned anyway. And of course THEY don't even need to since they have plenty of booster power. -- "UNIX should be used :: Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET> or as an adjective." -- AT&T :: ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP only)
lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov12.001720.6482@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>... Why aren't there plans to use appropriate boosters? # #Because there are none. Although it is fashionable to malign the Shuttle #as a planetary launcher, the Shuttle/IUS combination is the heaviest #booster available (outside the Soviet Union). Titan/Centaur is in second #place by a considerable margin. ... Didn't we use Titan/Centaur to launch the Voyagers? #The only available-now launcher that could do a better job on Cassini #would be Energia. Available now is not the issue. Cassini is launching toward the end of the century. We succeeded in going from initial concept to a moon landing in less time than that. Now you are confirming my suspicions that we are dead in the water as far as progress on ELV's goes. No program. No plan. Buying launches on Energia from the USSR would be in our mutual interest; it's one of the few things they can sell that we need. That probably guarantees that we'll never do it. -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg
anita@ut-emx.UUCP (Anita Cochran) (11/14/89)
In article <5569@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) writes: > In article <2086@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > Future Space Missions > > > > o Cassini > > Possible launch in 1996, orbiter would spend 4 years studying Saturn and > > send an atmospheric probe into the moon Titan. > > I have heard that Cassini will also use an Earth flyby to gain speed. > I assume this means that these probes are using underpowered boosters > and launching from the shuttle, as was the case with Galileo. This was > done with Galileo because it was too late - or would cost too much, or > the probe was too heavy - to refit the probe for launch on an ELV with > a Centaur upper stage. But WHY in heavens name is JPL sticking to this > method for probes planned for far in the future? > Why aren't there plans to use appropriate boosters? > You are wrong in what you heard about the launch method for Cassini. Both CRAF and Cassini are NOT shuttle launches. Since they were being planned around the time of the Challenger explosion, NASA realized relying totally on the Shuttle was not a good idea. Instead, both of these missions will launch on a Titan IV with Centaur upper stage. This is not the most powerful combination we have ever had but it will work. And yes, there will be an earth flyby to gain velocity. Galileo would have been fine with a shuttle launch as originally planned. However, when the Challenger blew, it was decided that the IUS was potentially too dangerous. Thus, they went to the Centaur. That is why they had the earth flyby on Galileo. Cassini has another very important constraint on launch characteristics. If it launches much later than scheduled, it will not be able to use the Jupiter gravity assist which is so important to getting to Saturn since Jupiter will move out of position with respect to Saturn. -- Anita Cochran uucp: {noao, ut-sally, ut-emx}!utastro!anita arpa: anita@astro.as.utexas.edu snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712 at&t: (512) 471-1471
anita@ut-emx.UUCP (Anita Cochran) (11/14/89)
In article <20862@ut-emx.UUCP>, anita@ut-emx.UUCP (Anita Cochran) writes: > Galileo would have been fine with a shuttle launch as originally planned. > However, when the Challenger blew, it was decided that the IUS was > potentially too dangerous. Thus, they went to the Centaur. OOPS. I blew this. I got it backwards. They were going to use the centaur upper stage and got cold feet and ended up using the IUS. My apologies for screwing this up. -- Anita Cochran uucp: {noao, ut-sally, ut-emx}!utastro!anita arpa: anita@astro.as.utexas.edu snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712 at&t: (512) 471-1471
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/14/89)
In article <20862@ut-emx.UUCP> anita@ut-emx.UUCP (Anita Cochran) writes: >Galileo would have been fine with a shuttle launch as originally planned. >However, when the Challenger blew, it was decided that the IUS was >potentially too dangerous. Thus, they went to the Centaur. Just the reverse -- Centaur yielded to the less powerful IUS. (Let's see if we can go for a repetitive-followups record on this one...) -- I'm a Leo. Leos don't believe * * * Tom Neff in this astrology stuff. * * * tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/15/89)
In article <5714@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary,ho,) writes: >#...the Shuttle/IUS combination is the heaviest >#booster available (outside the Soviet Union). Titan/Centaur is in second >#place by a considerable margin. >... > >Didn't we use Titan/Centaur to launch the Voyagers? That's right. The Voyagers went up before the shuttle was operational and after all the bigger stuff was abandoned. >#The only available-now launcher that could do a better job on Cassini >#would be Energia. > >Available now is not the issue. Cassini is launching toward the end of >the century... But it must be planned now, on the basis of launch vehicles which are known to be available. That limits the list to Titan/Centaur and Shuttle/IUS. If NASA would *commit* to, say, a Shuttle-C/Centaur combination, that would be a different story... assuming funds for it continued to be available, that is. The space-station planners don't feel they can count on the improved version of the shuttle SRBs, much less Shuttle-C. >We succeeded in going from initial concept to a moon landing >in less time than that. Now you are confirming my suspicions that we are >dead in the water as far as progress on ELV's goes. No program. No plan. Quite so, I'm afraid. The NASA that ran Project Apollo is not the one running today's programs, and the Congress that supported it has changed a little too. The only new large expendables being pursued at all are Shuttle-C and ALS. Both suffer from the same problem: where are the customers? I suspect Shuttle-C, being a relatively tame shuttle derivative, can get funded with the space station and a few other things as justification. ALS hasn't a prayer of ever flying unless the political situation vis-a-vis SDI changes radically. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu