Are there anymore outer solar system space missions planned?

[Pluto the Snowman]

I believe Jupiter and Saturn have both had orbiter missions. Neptune, Pluto and Uranus have only had 1 lousy flyby. Just wondering why they havent bothered with a Cassini like mission to Neptune or Uranus. I know they dont have such a wide variety of moons but they are still just as interesting with their dodgy magnetospheres and breakneck wind speeds. 

Sedna is too far so I wouldnt bother going there.

[Tzitzis]

Well I would like an orbiter around Uranus and Neptune.

[ghostdance]

Hope so. They'd better get a move on tho - I'd like to still be here when it happens

'Lousy' is a bit much - these missions must be incredibly planning-heavy...

ps  Don't forget we've still got all the goodies from the Kuiper Belt to look forward to 

[Pluto the Snowman]

Hope so. They'd better get a move on tho - I'd like to still be here when it happens

'Lousy' is a bit much - these missions must be incredibly planning-heavy...

ps  Don't forget we've still got all the goodies from the Kuiper Belt to look forward to 

Dont know what to expect regarding that. Pluto turned out to be surprisingly interesting so I cant even imagine what sort of stuff lies out there.

[Scott]

Dont know what to expect regarding that. Pluto turned out to be surprisingly interesting so I cant even imagine what sort of stuff lies out there.

Isn't this the same as the last thread you started regards planetary exploration? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the impression you feel that there's not enough being done or that these missions are somehow not fulfilling enough. I'm unsure as to how any of the missions can be called lousy. It's not like they are driving down the corner store, these missions are years in the making and cost billions. As they say, patience is a virtue

[Moon-Watcher]

I believe Jupiter and Saturn have both had orbiter missions. Neptune, Pluto and Uranus have only had 1 lousy flyby. Just wondering why they havent bothered with a Cassini like mission to Neptune or Uranus. I know they dont have such a wide variety of moons but they are still just as interesting with their dodgy magnetospheres and breakneck wind speeds. 

Sedna is too far so I wouldnt bother going there.

Yes, its way too far to explore.  Like Alpha Centuari, The Delta Quadrant, the Andromeda Galaxy, they are ALL too far away.  Lets stay here and talk about how "rubbish" the Moon is...

Isn't this the same as the last thread you started regards planetary exploration? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the impression you feel that there's not enough being done or that these missions are somehow not fulfilling enough. I'm unsure as to how any of the missions can be called lousy. It's not like they are driving down the corner store, these missions are years in the making and cost billions. As they say, patience is a virtue

I agree.  Why would someone who thinks the moon is "rubbish" and that some planetary bodies are too far to explore, be "interested" enough to join SGL and post about Astronomical issues?

   

I'm just curious...

[Moon-Watcher]

Turns out, it IS interesting!

http://www.space.com/25695-sedna-dwarf-planet.html

Huh!, Who knew?

Mark

[Stu]

I believe Jupiter and Saturn have both had orbiter missions. Neptune, Pluto and Uranus have only had 1 lousy flyby. Just wondering why they havent bothered with a Cassini like mission to Neptune or Uranus. I know they dont have such a wide variety of moons but they are still just as interesting with their dodgy magnetospheres and breakneck wind speeds.

Sedna is too far so I wouldnt bother going there.

Well I quite agree, a mission launched in 1977 which flew by all the major planets and is still exploring the outer solar system and interstellar space is pretty lousy. NASA should get their act in gear!..........

Sorry, back in the real world....

It's a matter of prioritisation of budgets and goals. Pluto was the last planet to be visited by a probe and is important because it represents a different kind of body.

Saturn and Jupiter are much more interesting, Jupiter because of its dynamic atmosphere and Saturn largely because of its ring structure.

[Stub Mandrel]

What amazes me is how different each body that we get a close look at is to each of the others. The possible exception being that Mercury looks like the Moon! If there's this variety in the solar system, statistics suggest there must be a much bigger set of of possible permutations out there. And with small moons being so variable, I wonder how huge the range of types is for larger rocky planets in the Venus/Earth range?

[Owmuchonomy]

Time for a photo (Credit: NASA/JPL).  I think that is impressive and I feel thoroughly humbled.

[Moon-Watcher]

Humbled is the right word dude.

Its absolutely awesome.  Also like the sunset on Mars pic.  A beautiful image...

Mark

[Pluto the Snowman]

Well I quite agree, a mission launched in 1977 which flew by all the major planets and is still exploring the outer solar system and interstellar space is pretty lousy. NASA should get their act in gear!..........

Sorry, back in the real world....

It's a matter of prioritisation of budgets and goals. Pluto was the last planet to be visited by a probe and is important because it represents a different kind of body.

Saturn and Jupiter are much more interesting, Jupiter because of its dynamic atmosphere and Saturn largely because of its ring structure.

Was just being sarcastic when I said lousy. I meant to imply that I really enjoy the greater amount of data that comes from orbiter missions such as Cassini. However 4 flybies in a row, each of differing planets and moons is quite a thing regardless. One of my favourite of NASAs missions was Voyager 2. I dont mean to knock anything that has been achieved, I relish it.

What amazes me is how different each body that we get a close look at is to each of the others. The possible exception being that Mercury looks like the Moon! If there's this variety in the solar system, statistics suggest there must be a much bigger set of of possible permutations out there. And with small moons being so variable, I wonder how huge the range of types is for larger rocky planets in the Venus/Earth range?

I agree. I apply that logic on the possibilities of life that might be out there. They say theres a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and there are that many galaxies in the observable universe. Our 1 star alone has 13 planets and more. I can confidently assume that theres some form of life out there somewhere. I also believe theres quite a few advanced civilisations out there too. However rare such life is, the universe is so huge and has so much in it that the odds against life forming on a particular planet are almost irrelevant anyway.

Isn't this the same as the last thread you started regards planetary exploration? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the impression you feel that there's not enough being done or that these missions are somehow not fulfilling enough. I'm unsure as to how any of the missions can be called lousy. It's not like they are driving down the corner store, these missions are years in the making and cost billions. As they say, patience is a virtue

On the contrary I find them pretty dam cool. I do desire a Cassini like orbiter on one of the ice giants. My choice of words wasnt the best but in any case it wasnt meant to be taken too literally. Albeit I dont find the moon very fascinating.

Yes, its way too far to explore.  Like Alpha Centuari, The Delta Quadrant, the Andromeda Galaxy, they are ALL too far away.  Lets stay here and talk about how "rubbish" the Moon is...

I agree.  Why would someone who thinks the moon is "rubbish" and that some planetary bodies are too far to explore, be "interested" enough to join SGL and post about Astronomical issues?

   

I'm just curious...

I detect some level of negativity aimed at me here. Try to avoid such implications in future as it usually leads to further unnecessary unpleasantness. Ive been kicked off loads of forums after having been drawn into such a discussion. 

I was interested enough to join SGL and post about astronomical issues simply because I maintain an interest in general cosmology and the solar system. I lack the intellectual talent to understand the more complex dynamics involved (such as nuclear fusion and core collapse in supernova etc) in the subject, but I like reading up on the gist of things.

[Pluto the Snowman]

I just checked my post history and have indeed found a thread similar to this one. Must admit even upon reading the thread title I do not remember creating it . Had a few. Anyway is there a feature that allows me to edit/delete my own posts? This is an invaluable feature when its available.

[Stu]

Pluto, perhaps consider your words a little more carefully in future and that will avoid misunderstanding from other members.

SGL is a very friendly place to be; there should be no reason to get drawn into anything inappropriate.

[RikM]

Why would someone who thinks the moon is "rubbish" and that some planetary bodies are too far to explore, be "interested" enough to join SGL and post about Astronomical issues?

   

I'm just curious...

People have many and varied interests in astronomy. I am not the least bit interested in the moon and planets. I will have a brief look at them if there is nothing more interesting about but I am almost exclusively a deep sky observer. The moon, for me, is light pollution!

There are many people who only look at the moon and have no interest in fuzzy blobs you can only see if you don't look at them.

Both interests and opinions are perfectly valid.

[Moon-Watcher]

People have many and varied interests in astronomy. I am not the least bit interested in the moon and planets. I will have a brief look at them if there is nothing more interesting about but I am almost exclusively a deep sky observer. The moon, for me, is light pollution!

There are many people who only look at the moon and have no interest in fuzzy blobs you can only see if you don't look at them.

Both interests and opinions are perfectly valid.

I agree that the moon can be light pollution, but would you say the moon is "rubbish"?

Also, if mankind thought Europe was too far to explore, we wold all still be living in Africa.  If the desire to explore was not followed, the telescope would not have been invented and you would not be enjoying viewing objects which, in some people's view are too far away to explore.

Mark

[symesie04]

Hve to say gents this all seems a little harsh but maybe thats just me. I think everyone is entitled to pick what their points of interest are and just because you are interested in a subject does not mean you have to immerse yourself in every aspect of it. I have a keen interest in Geology but have to admit i find mineralogy a little dull. So if he dont like the Moon then he dont like the Moon.

In regards to the OP i believe the problem lies simply with distance. Although Saturn and Jupiter are of course huge distances away the ice giants and beyond make Jupiter look like and Earth orbiter. Thus the expense of any mission to these worlds expand astronomically (excuse pun) as does the complexity and of course the time required on mission. Hence the missions beyond Saturn all try to cram in as much as possible to achieve a good ration of data = cost/time/complexity. Also you have to consider that largely we still know so little about these worlds and yes i hear you cry "well thats reason for an orbiter" but on the other hand NASA funding is dependent on public opinion and spending billions on a mission to put a orbiter around what to the "public" may turn out to be just a lump of rock probably wont help future causes. However now we know more and find that Pluto hides an array of interest i suspect its likely future orbiter are being discussed as i type.

[Stub Mandrel]

There's also the physics. New Horizons hurtled past Pluto. To go into orbit round any planet past saturn with a reasonable amount of propellant, the probe would need to have been 'running out of puff' sufficiently that the target planet's gravity can do most of the work of capturing it.

Saturn is 96 times the mass of Earth, Uranus and Neptune around 15 times and Pluto a tiny fraction.

While it can't be impossible to put something into orbit around these targets, I have no idea how you could do this without the journey taking much longer because of the need for an extended deceleration.

[astro mick]

Jumping off thread,speaking of Pluto,i have.nt seen more than two close up images of the Dwarf Planet released as yet.

Has anyone seen further.

I know its still downloading.

Mick.

[Pluto the Snowman]

I agree that the moon can be light pollution, but would you say the moon is "rubbish"?

Also, if mankind thought Europe was too far to explore, we wold all still be living in Africa.  If the desire to explore was not followed, the telescope would not have been invented and you would not be enjoying viewing objects which, in some people's view are too far away to explore.

Mark

Im all for exploration. However it took Voyager 2 about 12 years to get to Neptune, and 10 years for NH to get to Pluto. Going to Sedna will take far longer. Nobody will be interested in a mission they will likely not live long enough to see through. Hence me saying its too far.

Hve to say gents this all seems a little harsh but maybe thats just me. I think everyone is entitled to pick what their points of interest are and just because you are interested in a subject does not mean you have to immerse yourself in every aspect of it. I have a keen interest in Geology but have to admit i find mineralogy a little dull. So if he dont like the Moon then he dont like the Moon.

In regards to the OP i believe the problem lies simply with distance. Although Saturn and Jupiter are of course huge distances away the ice giants and beyond make Jupiter look like and Earth orbiter. Thus the expense of any mission to these worlds expand astronomically (excuse pun) as does the complexity and of course the time required on mission. Hence the missions beyond Saturn all try to cram in as much as possible to achieve a good ration of data = cost/time/complexity. Also you have to consider that largely we still know so little about these worlds and yes i hear you cry "well thats reason for an orbiter" but on the other hand NASA funding is dependent on public opinion and spending billions on a mission to put a orbiter around what to the "public" may turn out to be just a lump of rock probably wont help future causes. However now we know more and find that Pluto hides an array of interest i suspect its likely future orbiter are being discussed as i type.

That funding cuts thing really sucks dont it? The UK is going through similar cuts and they get us nowhere when they are not applied properly and appropriately. I can understand that there are higher priorities than space exploration. I do find that there is major focus on Mars right now. I recently purchased a book purely about the planet Mars, and its almost the same size of it! Full of hi res photos, geological info and info about the various robotics sent there. It cost me about £15 but I cant imagine how much it actually cost to produce. $33 trillion billion probably.

Jumping off thread,speaking of Pluto,i have.nt seen more than two close up images of the Dwarf Planet released as yet.

Has anyone seen further.

I know its still downloading.

Mick.

Everything I have seen comes from here. I liked the really close up shot but my favourite:

and the other side:

[DaveS]

Guys, we're gonna need some bigger engines 

Seriously, it took NH ten years to get to Pluto, with a gravity assist, and it was doing 36,000 mph when it went by. If we want sensible journey times (ie about 3-5 years) and to slow enough for orbital insertion then we're looking at various fusion drives to get the job done.

Time to chuck some serious money at the engineers.

[Moon-Watcher]

I think it was on "Click" last weekend, when they showed the 10 year old technology that was available when NH launched.

As always, it boils down to money.  If we chucked money at it like we did in the '60s, we'll be on Mars in 10 years EASY.

Mark

[DaveS]

*sigh*

There is, actually, technology developed almost to the point of being ready to go that could get us anywhere in the solar system in weeks rather than years. Problem is, discussion could lead us down forbidden roads (The dreaded "P" word), so I merely invite interested readers to google "Orion Project" and despair.

[Moon-Watcher]

I agree.  There has to be the "P" word "Will" behind it.  JFK won re: Moon.  George W lost re: Mars.

Maybe we need bankers to stop messing about, so there will be Public will too...

Mark

[Stub Mandrel]

*sigh*

There is, actually, technology developed almost to the point of being ready to go that could get us anywhere in the solar system in weeks rather than years. Problem is, discussion could lead us down forbidden roads (The dreaded "P" word), so I merely invite interested readers to google "Orion Project" and despair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall