←back to thread

217 points belter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[] No.41839623[source]
ETA is 2030. Originally planned for a rocket (SLS) which would have delivered the Clipper in ~3 yrs, but which was decided to be not viable for the Clipper (with some lobbying suspected).

How much science is delayed by the extra 2+ years? Looking at the 'project plan', is the Clipper's arrival (and delivery of data) on the critical path for research? And how much research?

I'm picturing a lot of scientists and research projects waiting an extra 2-3 years, and then all the research, follow-on missions, etc. also delayed. Essentially, the decision might shift everything in this field 2-3 years further away, and then centuries from now human habitation of other planets is 2-3 years later (ok, a bit exaggerated).

But seriously, maybe it's not on the critical path or doesn't impact that much. Is anyone here familiar with the research?

replies(8): >>41839754 #>>41839762 #>>41839879 #>>41839899 #>>41839911 #>>41840401 #>>41843379 #>>41852320 #
1. jccooper ◴[] No.41839899[source]
Well, Congress specified it to use SLS, since they were looking for extra payloads. And then uncoupled it from SLS when it became clear it couldn't even handle one extra payload.

NASA, wisely, always benchmarked the mission on Falcon Heavy, and bailed from SLS as soon as they were allowed to.

Clipper on SLS was more of a "wouldn't it be neat" scenario than the intended mission design.