Read on Twitter
This is exciting news! SIMPLEx missions like @LunarTrailblazr, Janus, @lunahmap, and others have the potential to change how-and how often-NASA explores the solar system.
But how exactly? Here's what I think.... https://twitter.com/Dr_ThomasZ/status/1334183455886774272
But how exactly? Here's what I think.... https://twitter.com/Dr_ThomasZ/status/1334183455886774272
I examined this very question as part of a decadal survey white paper, written with the help of @CaseyDreier, @Neal148409276, and Ben Clark: http://www.elizabethafrank.com/colliding-worlds/commercial-white-paper
In general, smaller spacecraft are cheaper and less programmatically risky even if they accept more technical risk. Increasing cost leads to higher reliability (too big to fail!), increasing cost and decreasing mission cadence—the dreaded "space spiral".
The original low-cost planetary mission program was Discovery, whose creation kicked off NASA's Faster Better Cheaper era. I've written about this previously: http://www.elizabethafrank.com/colliding-worlds/fbc
My analysis below demonstrates that even when normalized to FY2020 USD, the absolute cost of Discovery missions has grown over time. While its missions still provide amazing science, with budgets approaching $1B, Discovery missions can no longer be called low-cost.
(This data came from @CaseyDreier's fantastic compendium of the budgets of all NASA planetary missions.) https://www.planetary.org/articles/dive-deep-into-the-history-of-planetary-science-funding
In parallel, smallsats (<180 kg) have become more capable thanks in large part to commercial space activity in Earth orbit. NASA's Earth Science Division has been leveraging these capabilities for several years now with its Venture Class of missions.
https://eospso.nasa.gov/mission-category/13
https://eospso.nasa.gov/mission-category/13
SIMPLEx will provide planetary science the same opportunities for low-cost missions. The deep space environment also offers more technical challenges (radiation, comm, thermal, etc.) but MarCO showed that these problems are solvable.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php
In success, I predict that SIMPLEx will allow NASA PSD to rapidly iterate technology, accept more technical risk, visit more targets, & allow novel mission architectures.
It will also let more scientists be involved in missions and broaden their career opportunities.
It will also let more scientists be involved in missions and broaden their career opportunities.
We must also steel ourselves for the possibility of failure. What if the first SIMPLEx mission fails? The second? The third? There are no easy answers.
Striking the right balance is hard, but for low-cost missions, risk reduction is not the only reaction to failure.
For example, SpaceX embraced its failures publicly. Now the US is able to send its astronauts to the ISS for the first time in a decade.
For example, SpaceX embraced its failures publicly. Now the US is able to send its astronauts to the ISS for the first time in a decade.
For more detail, check out the original paper, which also folds in discussion of the CLPS program, whose future may be uncertain with the administration change: http://www.elizabethafrank.com/colliding-worlds/commercial-white-paper
