How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?Mangalyaan + Trident; is it possible? escape the solar system using a low cost boosterWhat should a Discovery Program mission budget look like?Why does NASA's Juno spacecraft only have a one year primary mission?“Culberson's” Europa mission: How can mission proritization be done so unilaterally?Will they really be able to “see” OSIRIS-REx from Australia? With meteor cameras?What are the louver-like structures on the sides of the Mariner 4 probe?How will the Lunar Gateway go to L2 and L1; how much delta-v is needed?How will the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON)'s Michelson interferometer measure wind speed?Did NASA's Borg Collective-designed antennas work? Have similar designs ever been used in spacecraft beyond testing?How will the Gateway-before-boots sequence benefit US business, economic and technological development?How will NASA know for sure if its “Good night, Kepler” instruction was correctly and completely executed?
If you attack a Tarrasque while swallowed, what AC do you need to beat to hit it?
Hotel booking: Why is Agoda much cheaper than booking.com?
Who is frowning in the sentence "Daisy looked at Tom frowning"?
Why could the Lunar Ascent Engine be used only once?
How can I stop my kitten from growing?
Bash - Execute two commands and get exit status 1 if first fails
Is there any official Lore on Keraptis the Wizard, apart from what is in White Plume Mountain?
How come Arya Stark wasn't hurt by this in Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5?
Working hours and productivity expectations for game artists and programmers
How do we explain the use of a software on a math paper?
Is it possible to view all the attribute data in QGIS
Can the word crowd refer to just 10 people?
What halachos of mourning apply to a grandchild for his grandparent's death?
Have I found a major security issue with login
Print characters from list with a For-loop
Is being an extrovert a necessary condition to be a manager?
Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?
Chain rule instead of product rule
Why does snapping your fingers activate the Infinity Gauntlet?
Could a chemically propelled craft travel directly between Earth and Mars spaceports?
Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?
Why favour the standard WP loop over iterating over (new WP_Query())->get_posts()?
How could the B-29 bomber back up under its own power?
Why did Nick Fury not hesitate in blowing up the plane he thought was carrying a nuke?
How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?
Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?Mangalyaan + Trident; is it possible? escape the solar system using a low cost boosterWhat should a Discovery Program mission budget look like?Why does NASA's Juno spacecraft only have a one year primary mission?“Culberson's” Europa mission: How can mission proritization be done so unilaterally?Will they really be able to “see” OSIRIS-REx from Australia? With meteor cameras?What are the louver-like structures on the sides of the Mariner 4 probe?How will the Lunar Gateway go to L2 and L1; how much delta-v is needed?How will the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON)'s Michelson interferometer measure wind speed?Did NASA's Borg Collective-designed antennas work? Have similar designs ever been used in spacecraft beyond testing?How will the Gateway-before-boots sequence benefit US business, economic and technological development?How will NASA know for sure if its “Good night, Kepler” instruction was correctly and completely executed?
$begingroup$
The recent NY Times article Neptune’s Moon Triton Is Destination of Proposed NASA Mission says (in part):
HOUSTON — Is it time to go back to Neptune?
Scientists representing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory proposed a spacecraft and mission on Tuesday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas that would explore Triton, Neptune’s largest moon.
Unlike multibillion dollar proposals for spacecraft that the agency has usually sent to the outer solar system, this spacecraft, named Trident, aims to be far less expensive, the mission’s scientists and engineers said, or the price of a small mission to the moon.
I don't know exactly how much "a small mission to the moon." but Beresheet is based on a mission that was about US $30 million† if I remember correctly, so it could be really amazing if that amount of money can get a spacecraft to the Neptune system and into orbit around Triton.
†it's US $95 million, US $30 million was roughly the google X-prize size.
I'm not sure it will orbit or if it will be a flyby, but the article says it will image the complete surface and Triton's period is almost six days:
To get to Triton, the spacecraft would fly in a fast, straight trajectory after an orbital assist from Jupiter, similar to the flyby that was used by the New Horizons spacecraft to visit Pluto in 2015. It would rely on a payload of scientific instruments to conduct ocean detection and atmospheric and ionospheric science. The spacecraft would photograph the entirety of Triton, which is the largest object in the solar system that has not yet been fully imaged.
nasa deep-space neptune
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The recent NY Times article Neptune’s Moon Triton Is Destination of Proposed NASA Mission says (in part):
HOUSTON — Is it time to go back to Neptune?
Scientists representing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory proposed a spacecraft and mission on Tuesday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas that would explore Triton, Neptune’s largest moon.
Unlike multibillion dollar proposals for spacecraft that the agency has usually sent to the outer solar system, this spacecraft, named Trident, aims to be far less expensive, the mission’s scientists and engineers said, or the price of a small mission to the moon.
I don't know exactly how much "a small mission to the moon." but Beresheet is based on a mission that was about US $30 million† if I remember correctly, so it could be really amazing if that amount of money can get a spacecraft to the Neptune system and into orbit around Triton.
†it's US $95 million, US $30 million was roughly the google X-prize size.
I'm not sure it will orbit or if it will be a flyby, but the article says it will image the complete surface and Triton's period is almost six days:
To get to Triton, the spacecraft would fly in a fast, straight trajectory after an orbital assist from Jupiter, similar to the flyby that was used by the New Horizons spacecraft to visit Pluto in 2015. It would rely on a payload of scientific instruments to conduct ocean detection and atmospheric and ionospheric science. The spacecraft would photograph the entirety of Triton, which is the largest object in the solar system that has not yet been fully imaged.
nasa deep-space neptune
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
1
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
1
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The recent NY Times article Neptune’s Moon Triton Is Destination of Proposed NASA Mission says (in part):
HOUSTON — Is it time to go back to Neptune?
Scientists representing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory proposed a spacecraft and mission on Tuesday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas that would explore Triton, Neptune’s largest moon.
Unlike multibillion dollar proposals for spacecraft that the agency has usually sent to the outer solar system, this spacecraft, named Trident, aims to be far less expensive, the mission’s scientists and engineers said, or the price of a small mission to the moon.
I don't know exactly how much "a small mission to the moon." but Beresheet is based on a mission that was about US $30 million† if I remember correctly, so it could be really amazing if that amount of money can get a spacecraft to the Neptune system and into orbit around Triton.
†it's US $95 million, US $30 million was roughly the google X-prize size.
I'm not sure it will orbit or if it will be a flyby, but the article says it will image the complete surface and Triton's period is almost six days:
To get to Triton, the spacecraft would fly in a fast, straight trajectory after an orbital assist from Jupiter, similar to the flyby that was used by the New Horizons spacecraft to visit Pluto in 2015. It would rely on a payload of scientific instruments to conduct ocean detection and atmospheric and ionospheric science. The spacecraft would photograph the entirety of Triton, which is the largest object in the solar system that has not yet been fully imaged.
nasa deep-space neptune
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
$endgroup$
The recent NY Times article Neptune’s Moon Triton Is Destination of Proposed NASA Mission says (in part):
HOUSTON — Is it time to go back to Neptune?
Scientists representing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory proposed a spacecraft and mission on Tuesday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas that would explore Triton, Neptune’s largest moon.
Unlike multibillion dollar proposals for spacecraft that the agency has usually sent to the outer solar system, this spacecraft, named Trident, aims to be far less expensive, the mission’s scientists and engineers said, or the price of a small mission to the moon.
I don't know exactly how much "a small mission to the moon." but Beresheet is based on a mission that was about US $30 million† if I remember correctly, so it could be really amazing if that amount of money can get a spacecraft to the Neptune system and into orbit around Triton.
†it's US $95 million, US $30 million was roughly the google X-prize size.
I'm not sure it will orbit or if it will be a flyby, but the article says it will image the complete surface and Triton's period is almost six days:
To get to Triton, the spacecraft would fly in a fast, straight trajectory after an orbital assist from Jupiter, similar to the flyby that was used by the New Horizons spacecraft to visit Pluto in 2015. It would rely on a payload of scientific instruments to conduct ocean detection and atmospheric and ionospheric science. The spacecraft would photograph the entirety of Triton, which is the largest object in the solar system that has not yet been fully imaged.
nasa deep-space neptune
nasa deep-space neptune
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
edited Mar 24 at 22:56
uhoh
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
asked Mar 23 at 8:42
uhohuhoh
43.5k19166544
43.5k19166544
5
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
1
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
1
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
1
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
1
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16
5
5
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
1
1
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
1
1
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing. @Hobbes has it exactly correct. It is a lightweight vehicle that can launch on even a small rocket, and takes advantage of gravity assists and favorable celestial mechanics to catch Triton at just the right time for encounter with the plumes illuminated. It will image the entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach, and spin around and image it in Neptunelight on the outbound. It basically carries no fuel but for the most modest trajectory corrections, and the hardware is all based on flight tested technologies. It will use radioactive power sources rather than heavy and expensive solar panels (for obvious reasons) and the science instrument payload will allow a fairly robust set of science objectives to be achieved, including ocean detection and characterizing its ionosphere.
Regarding how it affects the Decadal flagship recommendations, the problem facing an ice giants flagship is that you are looking at a minimum two-billion-dollar spacecraft with a 2040 launch at best (flagships take forever for political reasons, and a minimum of 25 years will have elapsed between the launches of Cassini and Clipper), and it would have to launch on something like SLS to get there in a reasonable timeframe (if SLS is still around) at a billion dollars per launch. By then, Trident would have already completed its flyby, and the flagship would have another eight or so years of cruise ahead of it. That's a long time to plan good Triton science based on the Trident science return.
Moreover, I would suggest that if we learned anything from the outcome of the 2013 Decadal, it is that mission sequences might be the way of the future. (See the MSR sequence, and now the Europa Clipper/lander sequence.)
Ultimately, Trident has a long way to go before being selected, and the competition is going to be fierce. (Moon Diver is a particularly thrilling competitor.) But the prospect of expanding the Discovery program from 5AU to 30AU is a real paradigm shift, and would be transformative for outer planets exploration. I hope this helps!
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencingWell, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.
$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a fast flyby in the $500M cost class (a Discovery mission). So not really comparable to Beresheet.
A rare, low Δv trajectory (Fig. 1) enables an MMRTG-powered spacecraft fitting under the Discovery cost cap.
The mission would have to be launched in 2026, for a Neptune encounter in 2038.
New Horizons has effectively demonstrated the scientific value of fast flybys in the outer solar system. Trident’s encounter with Triton will be similarly rapid...
so like New Horizons, they'll have only a few days of close-in data collection. The plan is to do the flyby at an altitude low enough to sample Triton's atmosphere.
During the Jupiter gravity assist, an Io flyby is possible.
More info
There have been more proposals for Uranus and Neptune missions recently, including orbiters and atmospheric entry probes. Interest in the ice giants is increasing, in the current decadal survey they were ranked third after Mars sample return and the Europa mission. Once those are out of the way, it may be possible to get a flagship-class mission funded (which would enable an orbiter at least).
While this flyby is an interesting idea, I suspect it may spoil that process a bit.
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35009%2fhow-can-trident-be-so-inexpensive-will-it-orbit-triton-or-just-do-a-slow-flyb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing. @Hobbes has it exactly correct. It is a lightweight vehicle that can launch on even a small rocket, and takes advantage of gravity assists and favorable celestial mechanics to catch Triton at just the right time for encounter with the plumes illuminated. It will image the entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach, and spin around and image it in Neptunelight on the outbound. It basically carries no fuel but for the most modest trajectory corrections, and the hardware is all based on flight tested technologies. It will use radioactive power sources rather than heavy and expensive solar panels (for obvious reasons) and the science instrument payload will allow a fairly robust set of science objectives to be achieved, including ocean detection and characterizing its ionosphere.
Regarding how it affects the Decadal flagship recommendations, the problem facing an ice giants flagship is that you are looking at a minimum two-billion-dollar spacecraft with a 2040 launch at best (flagships take forever for political reasons, and a minimum of 25 years will have elapsed between the launches of Cassini and Clipper), and it would have to launch on something like SLS to get there in a reasonable timeframe (if SLS is still around) at a billion dollars per launch. By then, Trident would have already completed its flyby, and the flagship would have another eight or so years of cruise ahead of it. That's a long time to plan good Triton science based on the Trident science return.
Moreover, I would suggest that if we learned anything from the outcome of the 2013 Decadal, it is that mission sequences might be the way of the future. (See the MSR sequence, and now the Europa Clipper/lander sequence.)
Ultimately, Trident has a long way to go before being selected, and the competition is going to be fierce. (Moon Diver is a particularly thrilling competitor.) But the prospect of expanding the Discovery program from 5AU to 30AU is a real paradigm shift, and would be transformative for outer planets exploration. I hope this helps!
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencingWell, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.
$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing. @Hobbes has it exactly correct. It is a lightweight vehicle that can launch on even a small rocket, and takes advantage of gravity assists and favorable celestial mechanics to catch Triton at just the right time for encounter with the plumes illuminated. It will image the entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach, and spin around and image it in Neptunelight on the outbound. It basically carries no fuel but for the most modest trajectory corrections, and the hardware is all based on flight tested technologies. It will use radioactive power sources rather than heavy and expensive solar panels (for obvious reasons) and the science instrument payload will allow a fairly robust set of science objectives to be achieved, including ocean detection and characterizing its ionosphere.
Regarding how it affects the Decadal flagship recommendations, the problem facing an ice giants flagship is that you are looking at a minimum two-billion-dollar spacecraft with a 2040 launch at best (flagships take forever for political reasons, and a minimum of 25 years will have elapsed between the launches of Cassini and Clipper), and it would have to launch on something like SLS to get there in a reasonable timeframe (if SLS is still around) at a billion dollars per launch. By then, Trident would have already completed its flyby, and the flagship would have another eight or so years of cruise ahead of it. That's a long time to plan good Triton science based on the Trident science return.
Moreover, I would suggest that if we learned anything from the outcome of the 2013 Decadal, it is that mission sequences might be the way of the future. (See the MSR sequence, and now the Europa Clipper/lander sequence.)
Ultimately, Trident has a long way to go before being selected, and the competition is going to be fierce. (Moon Diver is a particularly thrilling competitor.) But the prospect of expanding the Discovery program from 5AU to 30AU is a real paradigm shift, and would be transformative for outer planets exploration. I hope this helps!
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencingWell, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.
$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing. @Hobbes has it exactly correct. It is a lightweight vehicle that can launch on even a small rocket, and takes advantage of gravity assists and favorable celestial mechanics to catch Triton at just the right time for encounter with the plumes illuminated. It will image the entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach, and spin around and image it in Neptunelight on the outbound. It basically carries no fuel but for the most modest trajectory corrections, and the hardware is all based on flight tested technologies. It will use radioactive power sources rather than heavy and expensive solar panels (for obvious reasons) and the science instrument payload will allow a fairly robust set of science objectives to be achieved, including ocean detection and characterizing its ionosphere.
Regarding how it affects the Decadal flagship recommendations, the problem facing an ice giants flagship is that you are looking at a minimum two-billion-dollar spacecraft with a 2040 launch at best (flagships take forever for political reasons, and a minimum of 25 years will have elapsed between the launches of Cassini and Clipper), and it would have to launch on something like SLS to get there in a reasonable timeframe (if SLS is still around) at a billion dollars per launch. By then, Trident would have already completed its flyby, and the flagship would have another eight or so years of cruise ahead of it. That's a long time to plan good Triton science based on the Trident science return.
Moreover, I would suggest that if we learned anything from the outcome of the 2013 Decadal, it is that mission sequences might be the way of the future. (See the MSR sequence, and now the Europa Clipper/lander sequence.)
Ultimately, Trident has a long way to go before being selected, and the competition is going to be fierce. (Moon Diver is a particularly thrilling competitor.) But the prospect of expanding the Discovery program from 5AU to 30AU is a real paradigm shift, and would be transformative for outer planets exploration. I hope this helps!
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
$endgroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing. @Hobbes has it exactly correct. It is a lightweight vehicle that can launch on even a small rocket, and takes advantage of gravity assists and favorable celestial mechanics to catch Triton at just the right time for encounter with the plumes illuminated. It will image the entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach, and spin around and image it in Neptunelight on the outbound. It basically carries no fuel but for the most modest trajectory corrections, and the hardware is all based on flight tested technologies. It will use radioactive power sources rather than heavy and expensive solar panels (for obvious reasons) and the science instrument payload will allow a fairly robust set of science objectives to be achieved, including ocean detection and characterizing its ionosphere.
Regarding how it affects the Decadal flagship recommendations, the problem facing an ice giants flagship is that you are looking at a minimum two-billion-dollar spacecraft with a 2040 launch at best (flagships take forever for political reasons, and a minimum of 25 years will have elapsed between the launches of Cassini and Clipper), and it would have to launch on something like SLS to get there in a reasonable timeframe (if SLS is still around) at a billion dollars per launch. By then, Trident would have already completed its flyby, and the flagship would have another eight or so years of cruise ahead of it. That's a long time to plan good Triton science based on the Trident science return.
Moreover, I would suggest that if we learned anything from the outcome of the 2013 Decadal, it is that mission sequences might be the way of the future. (See the MSR sequence, and now the Europa Clipper/lander sequence.)
Ultimately, Trident has a long way to go before being selected, and the competition is going to be fierce. (Moon Diver is a particularly thrilling competitor.) But the prospect of expanding the Discovery program from 5AU to 30AU is a real paradigm shift, and would be transformative for outer planets exploration. I hope this helps!
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
edited Mar 25 at 3:27
Robotnik
1034
1034
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
answered Mar 23 at 18:12
David W. BrownDavid W. Brown
60624
60624
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencingWell, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.
$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencingWell, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.
$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
$begingroup$
It's described as a fly by in the text just beneath the headline.
$endgroup$
– HopDavid
Mar 23 at 21:22
15
15
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing Well, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
$begingroup$
I wrote the article you are referencing Well, uh, cool! Nice to see people reaching out.$endgroup$
– Fake Name
Mar 23 at 21:26
3
3
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer and Welcome to Space! About "It will image the entirety entirety of Triton in sunlight on approach..." Do you mean it will start imaging about three days prior to flyby so that all sides of the planet are illuminated by sunlight, or that one entire half will be imaged illuminated by sunlight and the other half will be imaged by "Neptunelight"? Like they say, "Photography Dies in Darkness" (humor)
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:13
2
2
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
$begingroup$
btw I enjoyed your 2015 Op-Ed When Congress Puts NASA on Hold, Planets Don’t Wait
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 23 at 23:17
4
4
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
$begingroup$
Hi Uhoh! Thanks. Yes it is exactly as you describe. It’ll image one complete revolution of Triton around Neptune on approach (from -105 to -35 hours) before beginning a high resolution imaging at -10 hours on close approach. On departure it will do eclipse imaging in Neptuneshine. Incidentally, I noticed the subject line describes it as a slow flyby, but in fact it will be the fastest flyby of a planetary object ever achieved. (Faster for example than New Horizons at Pluto.) I can dig through my notes for the exact number, though I don’t have them with me presently.
$endgroup$
– David W. Brown
Mar 24 at 2:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a fast flyby in the $500M cost class (a Discovery mission). So not really comparable to Beresheet.
A rare, low Δv trajectory (Fig. 1) enables an MMRTG-powered spacecraft fitting under the Discovery cost cap.
The mission would have to be launched in 2026, for a Neptune encounter in 2038.
New Horizons has effectively demonstrated the scientific value of fast flybys in the outer solar system. Trident’s encounter with Triton will be similarly rapid...
so like New Horizons, they'll have only a few days of close-in data collection. The plan is to do the flyby at an altitude low enough to sample Triton's atmosphere.
During the Jupiter gravity assist, an Io flyby is possible.
More info
There have been more proposals for Uranus and Neptune missions recently, including orbiters and atmospheric entry probes. Interest in the ice giants is increasing, in the current decadal survey they were ranked third after Mars sample return and the Europa mission. Once those are out of the way, it may be possible to get a flagship-class mission funded (which would enable an orbiter at least).
While this flyby is an interesting idea, I suspect it may spoil that process a bit.
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a fast flyby in the $500M cost class (a Discovery mission). So not really comparable to Beresheet.
A rare, low Δv trajectory (Fig. 1) enables an MMRTG-powered spacecraft fitting under the Discovery cost cap.
The mission would have to be launched in 2026, for a Neptune encounter in 2038.
New Horizons has effectively demonstrated the scientific value of fast flybys in the outer solar system. Trident’s encounter with Triton will be similarly rapid...
so like New Horizons, they'll have only a few days of close-in data collection. The plan is to do the flyby at an altitude low enough to sample Triton's atmosphere.
During the Jupiter gravity assist, an Io flyby is possible.
More info
There have been more proposals for Uranus and Neptune missions recently, including orbiters and atmospheric entry probes. Interest in the ice giants is increasing, in the current decadal survey they were ranked third after Mars sample return and the Europa mission. Once those are out of the way, it may be possible to get a flagship-class mission funded (which would enable an orbiter at least).
While this flyby is an interesting idea, I suspect it may spoil that process a bit.
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a fast flyby in the $500M cost class (a Discovery mission). So not really comparable to Beresheet.
A rare, low Δv trajectory (Fig. 1) enables an MMRTG-powered spacecraft fitting under the Discovery cost cap.
The mission would have to be launched in 2026, for a Neptune encounter in 2038.
New Horizons has effectively demonstrated the scientific value of fast flybys in the outer solar system. Trident’s encounter with Triton will be similarly rapid...
so like New Horizons, they'll have only a few days of close-in data collection. The plan is to do the flyby at an altitude low enough to sample Triton's atmosphere.
During the Jupiter gravity assist, an Io flyby is possible.
More info
There have been more proposals for Uranus and Neptune missions recently, including orbiters and atmospheric entry probes. Interest in the ice giants is increasing, in the current decadal survey they were ranked third after Mars sample return and the Europa mission. Once those are out of the way, it may be possible to get a flagship-class mission funded (which would enable an orbiter at least).
While this flyby is an interesting idea, I suspect it may spoil that process a bit.
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
$endgroup$
It's a fast flyby in the $500M cost class (a Discovery mission). So not really comparable to Beresheet.
A rare, low Δv trajectory (Fig. 1) enables an MMRTG-powered spacecraft fitting under the Discovery cost cap.
The mission would have to be launched in 2026, for a Neptune encounter in 2038.
New Horizons has effectively demonstrated the scientific value of fast flybys in the outer solar system. Trident’s encounter with Triton will be similarly rapid...
so like New Horizons, they'll have only a few days of close-in data collection. The plan is to do the flyby at an altitude low enough to sample Triton's atmosphere.
During the Jupiter gravity assist, an Io flyby is possible.
More info
There have been more proposals for Uranus and Neptune missions recently, including orbiters and atmospheric entry probes. Interest in the ice giants is increasing, in the current decadal survey they were ranked third after Mars sample return and the Europa mission. Once those are out of the way, it may be possible to get a flagship-class mission funded (which would enable an orbiter at least).
While this flyby is an interesting idea, I suspect it may spoil that process a bit.
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
edited Mar 23 at 19:05
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
answered Mar 23 at 9:45
HobbesHobbes
98.5k2278437
98.5k2278437
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35009%2fhow-can-trident-be-so-inexpensive-will-it-orbit-triton-or-just-do-a-slow-flyb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
Has anyone got a conversion chart from Nasa dollars to US dollars? Based on the James Webb Space Telescope it's currently about 6 to 1!
$endgroup$
– Dave Gremlin
Mar 24 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I've just asked Is post-X-prize Beresheet better than the X-prize candidate?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 24 at 22:56
1
$begingroup$
This raises a perennial question: Do we need much greater science at much greater cost, or much less science at much reduced cost? One of NASA's key metrics (if you can call it that—quantification is difficult) is science value per dollar spent, "bang for the buck". The Cassini-Huygens mission demonstrated the huge science return from its 4B cost. Would a 500M Saturn system flyby provide 1/8 of the science return Cassini did? Probably not. There is much value in long-duration observations. But if the funding environment is such that a flagship just won't fly...take the cheaper option?
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:02
1
$begingroup$
One concern in the planetary science community is that in government circles, people tend to "put a check mark in the box" indicating that "we flew a Neptune mission" regardless of whether or not that mission answered the high-priority questions the community wanted answered. If you fly the cheap mission, you answer maybe a few of the questions, but you might not get a mission that answers many of the pressing questions until many decades later. Voyager 2 flew by Neptune in 1989. Here it is, 30 years later, and we're discussing missions arriving there in the 2040s!
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
Mar 27 at 16:16