Report Series: Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Small Explorer Missions (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C Input from NASA and the Community
Appendix C Input from NASA and the Community
Pages 8-26
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 8... ...
Appendix C Input from NASA and the Community The following input from NASA and the community is provided, unedited, in this appendix: INPUT FROM NASA 9 Paul Hertz, 9 INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY 15 Kevin France, 15 James C Green, 15 Jack Burns, 16 Pete Roming, 17 Stephen Unwin, 18 INPUT FROM THE SMEX PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS 21 Fiona A
|
From page 9... ...
The only successfully launched astrophysics SMEX missions are SWAS, GALEX, and NuSTAR.
|
From page 10... ...
One mission proposal (Joule, PI Richard Kelley, GSFC) was converted into a Mission of Opportunity contribution to the Japanese Astro-E2/Suzaku mission.
|
From page 11... ...
Selected: July 30, 2015 Downselected: January 3, 2017 Launch targeted for late 2020 o Mission homepage: https://wwwastro.msfc.nasa.gov/ixpe/ • PRAXyS (Polarimeter for Relativistic Astrophysical X-ray Sources) o PI: Keith Jahoda (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)
|
From page 12... ...
The only successfully launched astrophysics SMEX missions are SWAS, GALEX, and NuSTAR. SWAS https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/swas/publications.html, http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/biblio/swas.html GALEX http://www.galex.caltech.edu/researcher/publications.html https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/biblio/pubs/galex_sci.html NuSTAR http://www.nustar.caltech.edu/page/publications https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/biblio/pubs/nustar_cat2ref.html From Fiona Harrison (NuSTAR PI)
|
From page 13... ...
including launch vehicle; Pegasus launch cost $26.6-30.3M (FY03$) depending on launch site 16 Astrophysics SMEX proposals received Step 1 selection announced: 4 Nov 2003 Step 1 selections: DUO, Richard Griffiths (Carnegie Mellon U)
|
From page 14... ...
Science major weaknesses include weaknesses in the merit of the proposed science investigation as well as weaknesses in the proposed payload. Note that the Category IV drivers do not add to the number of Category IV proposals because some proposals had multiple drivers for their Category IV assignment.
|
From page 15... ...
1. If you have proposed in previous SMEX rounds, or are considering proposing in an upcoming round, do you see sufficient opportunities now, given the SMEX scope as currently defined?
|
From page 16... ...
If you have proposed in previous SMEX rounds, or are considering proposing in an upcoming round, do you see sufficient opportunities now, given the SMEX scope as currently defined? -- The most recent Astrophysics SMEX AO, released in 2014, specified a cost cap of $175M (FY15$)
|
From page 17... ...
If you have proposed in previous SMEX rounds, or are considering proposing in an upcoming round, do you see sufficient opportunities now, given the SMEX scope as currently defined? I see the opportunities for doing SMEX-class science rapidly shrinking, particularly for missions that require optics.
|
From page 18... ...
We feel that the current SMEX opportunity structure is not optimal, and better science would result from eliminating two SMEX opportunities and replacing them with an additional MIDEX. This enables the most compelling science per dollar due to the capabilities enabled by the larger cost cap, the larger launch vehicle and orbit options.
|
From page 19... ...
than using a NASA-provided vehicle. We recognize that ridesharing and alternate launch vehicles are, in fact, already allowed in the SMEX program.
|
From page 20... ...
This has already been done very successfully with CubeSats and other very small payloads. We recommend that NASA continue with the current SALMON Missions of Opportunity line, which in particular provides an effective means to enter into mission partnerships.
|
From page 21... ...
Yes, I think there are sufficient opportunities. However, I will note that the cost cap for SMEX missions has not been inflated at a rate consistent with inflation in the aerospace industry.
|
From page 22... ...
The large number of Cube Sats and Small Sats already in space has generated a catalog of off-the-shelf components, electronics, and software that have been demonstrated by flight to be at TRL-9. We now have the tools to change the flight rate of SMEX class missions by an order of magnitude over the next decade while remaining inside the current budget of NASA SMEX missions.
|
From page 23... ...
Before these instruments received their high ratings from the Decadal Survey Science Panels more than decade was spent in defining mission requirements and producing primary costs estimates in enough detail to convince the members of the NRC panels of their reality. There were many missions under evaluation by the panels that more took 18 months to conclude.
|
From page 24... ...
An optimist would predict that current cost of $170 million for a SMEX mission can drop to $30 million. Such a reduction in cost would allow the current NASA SMEX budget to support a flight rate increase by a factor of four and allow $12.5 million for scientific data analysis for each of these missions.
|
From page 25... ...
2) If you have proposed in previous SMEX rounds, or are considering proposing in an upcoming round, do you see sufficient opportunities now, given the SMEX scope as currently defined?
|
From page 26... ...
Probably unacceptable but further easing of the documentation requirements would go a long way to optimizing the science per unit dollar.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.