Could We Monitor Weather on All Planets with Current Space Budget?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of monitoring weather on all planets in the solar system using current space budgets, particularly in relation to the Space Launch System (SLS) and existing satellite technologies. Participants explore the implications of deploying polar orbiting satellites for planetary weather monitoring, comparing costs and logistical challenges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that polar orbiting satellites could efficiently monitor planetary climates, proposing a model based on existing Earth weather satellites and extrapolating costs for missions to other planets.
  • Another participant argues that the proposed investment would be a significant waste of resources given pressing needs on Earth, questioning the return on investment.
  • A participant challenges the assumptions made about satellite data collection, noting that most weather data on Earth comes from terrestrial sensors rather than satellites, and emphasizes the complexities involved in launching and operating probes around other planets.
  • One participant provides an alternative cost estimate based on the MESSENGER mission, suggesting that the total cost could be as high as $94 billion, which would exceed the annual budget of some states and NASA itself.
  • Another participant compares the costs of different rockets and suggests that efficiencies could be gained by developing multiple similar probes, although they acknowledge that operational costs could still be prohibitive.
  • A later reply humorously emphasizes the challenges of achieving polar orbits around distant planets, reflecting skepticism about the feasibility of the proposed approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the proposed planetary weather monitoring initiative. There is no consensus on the validity of the assumptions made or the overall practicality of the idea.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions regarding data collection methods, the complexities of launching probes, and the potential for cost overruns. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the operational efficiencies that could be achieved.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in planetary science, space exploration economics, and satellite technology may find the discussion relevant.

PicnicDoctor
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
How feasible is it to track the weather on every planet at the same level of detail we do for Earth.
I was curious about how much we could advance planetary science with the amount we are spending (and planning to spend) on the SLS. Specifically, I want us to increase the number of climates we study from basically Earth to every planet in the solar system.

It looks like polar orbiting satellites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite#Polar_orbiting) would be the most efficient to monitor a planet. If they can act as communication relays or help with coordinating future probes, all the better. Seems like 4 is a good number of these for earth. Looking at JPSS-1 the mass is 2294 kg. The math lines up pretty good so that 4 satellites for 1 falcon heavy mission, given my assumptions that follow.

16,800 kg payload to Mars expendable * 0.70 to factor in reusable instead = 11760 kg. Assuming a payload to Mars would be about the same with gravity assists to anywhere else in solar system. Falcon heavy launch cost of approximately $100 million reusable.

So assuming 4 is the minimum and then extrapolating linearly we get:
planetradius# of satellitesnumber of falcon heavy missions
Jupiter139,822 km4411
Saturn116,464 km369
Uranus50,724 km164
Neptune49,248 km164
Earth12,756 km4n/a
Venus12,104 km41
Mars6,780 km41
Mercury
4,780 km
41

That comes to 31 falcon heavy missions with launch costs of 3.1 billion dollars. The JPSS program on Earth seems to cost about $1 billion a year to operate, I'm going to assume it will be more efficient scaled up and be ~ .5 billion per planet (.5 * 7) - so total operating/building costs of 3.5 billion a year.

I made a lot of assumptions (and some numbers totally up), but it does seem like monitoring every planet in our solar system at Earth like weather detail, is in the same cost order of magnitude as the SLS program ($35 billion estimate to 2025?).

Would love to know: which of my assumptions are the worst; what you think of the idea; if you know of anyone who is proposing we do something like this - even to just say Mars. Thanks for reading!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PicnicDoctor said:
what you think of the idea;
Right now that would be a HUGE waste of money for very little return when we have pressing needs here on Earth.
 
PicnicDoctor said:
Would love to know: which of my assumptions are the worst

That would be hard to say.

One biggie is that most of our weather data on Earth comes from terrestrial sensors, not satellites. Another is that you just don't put up a rocket and whoosh! You have a probe orbiting another planet,. In a polar orbit, no less. It doesn't work like that - look at MESSENGER for an indication of how hard it would be.

A better estimate of cost is to scale up MESSENGER by 8 (twice the mass, and four times the number of probes) per mission and 31 missions, for a total of $94B (inflation adjusted), and since it lasted 4 years, you'd need to spend roughly $25B/year to do this. That's more than the entire state budget of Minnesota.
 
Last edited:
As a PS..it's also more than the entire NASA budget.
 
Comparing the rockets flown

Delta II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_II)
US$51 million in 1987
US$137 million in 2018 before retirement

Seems fare that messenger mission might be around the same $100 million range as Falcon Heavy in 2004.

The Payload capacity that is comparable is Payload to GTO
Delta II - 2,170 kg
Falcon Heavy - 26,700 kg

We can send 12 more probes per the same launch costs.

$450 million total cost of Messenger (so $350m for operations, construction) over at least 10 years.. that's $35 million a year

Operations obviously if we can't get more efficient would kill it at 44 billion a year, but if we develop 128 relatively similar probes, I'm guessing we can get some efficiencies for both construction and operations.

I don't see why polar orbits would be a significant setback seeing as how we are not coming from the target planet in question.
 
PicnicDoctor said:
We can send 12 more probes per the same launch costs.

Whoosh! In orbit around Jupiter!
Whoosh! In orbit around Saturn!
Whoosh! Four in Orbit around Uranus, four around Neptune, one around Venus and three around Jupiter!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
20K