{"id":11590,"date":"2024-08-02T18:03:54","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T22:03:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/messenger-from-setbacks-to-success\/"},"modified":"2024-08-02T18:03:54","modified_gmt":"2024-08-02T22:03:54","slug":"messenger-from-setbacks-to-success","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/messenger-from-setbacks-to-success\/","title":{"rendered":"MESSENGER \u2013 From Setbacks to Success"},"content":{"rendered":"

MESSENGER \u2013 From Setbacks to Success<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
20 Min Read<\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMESSENGER \u2013 From Setbacks to Success\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/h1>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"This<\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
This view of Mercury was produced by using images from the color base map imaging campaign during MESSENGER’s primary mission.<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCredits: <\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNASA\/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory\/Carnegie Institution of Washington<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The excerpts below are taken from Discovery Program oral history interviews<\/a> conducted in 2009 by Dr. Susan Niebur and tell the story of the hurdles the MESSENGER <\/a>(MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) mission team faced with the technical requirements of visiting Mercury, budget challenges, and schedule impacts \u2014all while keeping their mission goals in mind on the way to launch.<\/p>\n

The MESSENGER mission followed a long road from conception to launch with multiple detours and obstacles along the way. First conceived by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) after NASA\u2019s 1996 Discovery Program<\/a> Announcement of Opportunity, the mission to Mercury proposal, if accepted, would be the first spacecraft to visit the planet since Mariner 10\u2019s flybys in 1974.<\/em> A critical step for APL was finding the right principal investigator (PI) to lead the mission<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead the Discovery Program oral histories<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cThese projects are so huge\u201d<\/h2>\n

Andrew F. Cheng, MESSENGER Co-Investigator<\/h4>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s not that many people out there, especially in the early days when the PI [principal investigator-led] mission paradigm itself was just getting set up. You didn\u2019t want to screw up. You didn\u2019t want to have a problem. \u2026Scientific qualifications are necessary, but that\u2019s not even the biggest part of it. It\u2019s knowing something about missions and seeing how they work with engineers and also how they handle Headquarters and how they handle the program management. It\u2019s a whole variety of things.<\/p>\n

\u201cNumber one is the cachet to help you win the mission. And then there\u2019s the consideration, \u2018Okay, what if we win and we\u2019re actually stuck with this guy? All right, he better be able to work with the engineers, better know how to listen, better realize that, yes, you\u2019re in charge, but you\u2019re not really.\u2019 PIs don\u2019t know everything and they have to know how to delegate. These projects are so huge\u2026they can\u2019t get their fingers into everything.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Andrew Cheng’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cThis sounded like fun\u201d<\/h2>\n

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator<\/h4>\n

\u201cAPL decided that they thought they could do a Mercury orbiter mission.\u00a0 They were doing NEAR [Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous] at the time.\u00a0 They had ambitions to do more things in solar system exploration.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI got a call from John Appleby, who was the head of development for the APL space department at the time.\u00a0 He said, \u2018We are looking to put together a team of scientists for a Discovery proposal, a Mercury orbiter.\u00a0 Would you be interested?\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI said sure.\u00a0 \u2026This sounded like fun.\u00a0 I hadn\u2019t given a great deal of thought to Mercury for almost 20 years, then.\u00a0 This is spring of 1996.\u00a0 But it was something I had wanted to do for 20 years.\u00a0 It was a chance.\u00a0 \u2026The next thing I knew I got a call from Tom Krimigis, \u2026and he said, \u201cCan you come out to APL?\u201d\u00a0 I had never been to APL.\u00a0 So I drove out there and I was late because I didn\u2019t know how bad the beltway traffic would be.\u00a0 I came into this room with 10 people waiting for me, and the gist of it was, they asked me, \u2018Would you like to be PI?\u00a0 You already said you would be on the science team for the mission, how about being PI?\u2019\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cI was na\u00efve in a lot of ways.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t appreciate all of the aspects of the things I would have to know.\u00a0 For instance, when we wrote that first proposal.\u00a0 The first time we wrote it, it got accepted [and moved] to the second round [of competition].\u00a0 I put a lot of effort into the science rationale, which was the first 25 pages of the proposal.\u00a0 But I had to accept that the engineering team really knew what they were doing.\u00a0 I wasn\u2019t in a position to critically evaluate the confidence with which they had solutions to particular technical challenges.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t know that much then about risk management.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t know how to ask all of the questions that I learned how to ask about.\u00a0 Nor did I know how to evaluate project managers, the first time around.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the time of our site visit [a requirement during the second round], we had a development path for the solar arrays, which was worked out, but in the questions and answers it was clear we didn\u2019t have a sufficient contingency plan.\u00a0 If any of the testing proved that our assumptions were not appropriate\u2026we didn\u2019t have a deep plan for what to do next.\u00a0 And so we were really sharply dinged on the solar arrays, which have to face the Sun.\u00a0 We hadn\u2019t done enough testing to be absolutely confident to the level of being able to persuade a legitimately skeptical review panel that we had the right solution.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe other place we got hammered was that the budget did not come together.\u00a0 This was the project manager\u2019s fault.\u00a0 It didn\u2019t come together in a way that could be shared with the team, including the PI, before the site visit.\u00a0 The budget was so late that he didn\u2019t put all the numbers together until the night before the presentation, and some of that information that had gone out to the site review team didn\u2019t add up.\u00a0 \u2026And there was nobody there who could help him because nobody had seen it.\u00a0 It had been put together so last minute\u2026.I wasn\u2019t sufficiently skeptical in the areas where I was ignorant.\u00a0 So I certainly bear a lot of responsibility [for not being chosen].\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Sean Solomon’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Workers<\/a><\/figure>
\n
These two large solar panels gave the MESSENGER spacecraft its power.<\/div>\n
NASA<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

After that first disappointment, the MESSENGER team regrouped and proposed again in 1998 after some changes to the team and after addressing significant problems that were identified in the first proposal<\/em>. The second proposal was accepted for development on July 7, 1999.<\/p>\n

\u201cSomebody who knew about risk\u201d<\/h2>\n

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator<\/h4>\n

\u201cWe had a meeting and agreed that we would re-propose.\u00a0 I said I want a new project manager\u2026we had to have a rapport, someone who could work well with his own engineers.\u00a0 Somebody whose budgets I believed.\u00a0 Somebody who knew about risk.\u00a0 Somebody who had had some experience.\u00a0 They said, \u2018We think we have somebody for you.\u00a0 We would like you to meet Max Peterson.\u2019\u00a0 Max and I hit it off.\u00a0 So he became the proposal manager and the project manager for the second proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe had to solve the solar array problem.\u00a0 And APL did that by doing the testing.\u00a0 They developed a testing protocol.\u00a0 They put the resources in.\u00a0 They figured out how to do the test at NASA Glenn [Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio].\u00a0 So by the time we wrote our second proposal, and particularly by the time of the second site study, we could say, \u2018Not only do we have a solution for the solar arrays, here are all the tests that validate our models.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cSo, the first time we proposed we were low risk in round one and high risk after the site visit, high risk being the solar arrays and not having a good project manager.\u00a0 But we were low risk both times the second time through.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Sean Solomon’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Two separate Mars missions lost their spacecraft to failures in 1999 \u2014 the Mars Climate Orbiter in September and the Mars Polar Lander in December.\u00a0 As a result, NASA set up the NASA Integrated Action Team [NIAT] to study these failures and make recommendations going forward for all small missions, including the Discovery missions.\u00a0 For the newly selected MESSENGER mission, this imposed a significant effect on the planned budget and timeline because of the added mandates for risk avoidance.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cR<\/strong>eviews upon reviews upon reviews\u201d<\/h2>\n

Tom Krimigis, APL Space Department head<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cWell, needless to say, we felt sort of punished, even though we were innocent.\u00a0 Some of that also was very disappointing because we did have several of these reviews, and they pointed out certain things that needed to be done.\u00a0 But they were imposed on the system, and at the same time not paid for, and also not relaxing the schedule in any way, because we had a specific deadline to launch and so on.\u00a0 So, these were mandates.\u00a0 And that\u2019s part of the problem with the reviews upon reviews upon reviews, that there is no incentive for the review teams to somehow be mindful of the schedule and the cost.<\/p>\n

\u201cI complained to Headquarters at one time that we had a third of the staff acting on the recommendations from the previous review; another third preparing for the next review; and the final third was actually doing work.\u00a0 I mean, it was really horrendous.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Tom Krimigis’ oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n
In the high bay clean room at the Astrotech Space Operations processing facilities near Kennedy Space Center, workers prepared to attach an overhead crane to NASA\u2019s MESSENGER spacecraft. The spacecraft was moved to a work stand where employees of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, builders of the spacecraft, performed an initial state-of-health check.<\/div>\n
NASA<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cKeep marching forward\u201d<\/h2>\n

Ralph McNutt, MESSENGER Project Scientist<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cI think what did happen was then the NIAT report came out, and it was like we were told, \u2018Well, things are going to happen differently.\u2019 <\/p>\n

\u201cAnd of course, we were in the middle of trying to get this thing pulled together when all of this was going on.\u00a0 Quite frankly, I think looking back on it, it\u2019s not that we didn\u2019t take it seriously, it\u2019s just that if you\u2019re going to keep your budget down, you\u2019ve got a certain number of people.\u00a0 And unfortunately there are only 24 hours in the day and occasionally it\u2019s probably good to sleep during some of those.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo we had [asked for] an original amount of money, which we got, which was, looking back on it, way too small considering what was going to be coming down the pike at us.\u00a0 And as all of this started coming together about what the implications really were. \u2018Wait a minute.\u00a0 We\u2019re not going to make it.\u2019\u00a0 And we got into a bit more hardball with some of the powers that be at that point.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe didn\u2019t get nearly all of what we\u2019d asked for.\u00a0 And we said, \u2018Well, we\u2019re not going to give up.\u00a0 We\u2019re going to keep marching forward.\u2019\u00a0 And we did have to go back and ask for more money.\u00a0 Sean ended up giving presentations to four of the different NASA advisory subcommittees down at NASA Headquarters.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the committees agreed that it should go forward.\u00a0 There were some other people down at NASA Headquarters that weren\u2019t very happy with that assessment.\u00a0 \u2026I think everybody was frustrated.\u00a0 It wasn\u2019t like we felt like we were coming up roses.\u00a0 \u2026I don\u2019t know that it was so much a feeling of vindication as the feeling that we had managed to evade the executioner\u2019s blade.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Ralph McNutt’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Artist<\/a><\/figure>
\n
Artist impression of NASA\u2019s MESSENGER spacecraft in orbit at Mercury.<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

As the mission development continued, delivery delays from subcontractors presented another schedule and cost impact.\u00a0 And the cost reviews at NASA Headquarters were causing more worry for the team.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cN<\/strong><\/strong>ot a standard review\u201d<\/h2>\n

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager<\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cMy first meeting was called a Risk Retirement Review.\u00a0 It was covered by an independent assessment team that had been following the program for some time.\u00a0 I went to the review and I began to sense that there were some serious problems going on in the program.\u00a0 The review was not a standard review.\u00a0 It was requested by Colleen Hartman, and I believe her title at the time was Director for the Division of Planetary Science.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd so we get into the details and it was clear from the start that there was a very big struggle to try to keep the program cost under the [budget] cap.\u00a0 It was a very big concern about that.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere were problems.\u00a0 We had problems with the IMU [Inertial Measurement Unit].\u00a0 It was very late and Northrup Grumman was having a heck of a time with it.\u00a0 Also, just as I came in the door, they had announced that one of the solar array substrates had cracked in testing.\u00a0 What were they going to do about that $100,000 rebuild?\u00a0 We had an autonomy system to protect the spacecraft that was stuck.\u00a0 It was a very comprehensive system, trying to do everything. Everywhere I looked there were cost and schedule problems.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cNow you have to understand, MESSENGER is a very tough mission.\u00a0 You have to keep your eye on the spacecraft weight, on the propulsion, and on the thermal.\u00a0 An awful lot of technology.\u00a0 The guys that were working the job were very good people, but it was a very tough job.\u00a0 So, I really wasn\u2019t surprised to see that there were problems.\u00a0 I mean this is a program with an awful lot of technology development. An awful lot.\u00a0 And we were having problems.\u00a0 So, we had the review and came out of it with some recommendations.\u00a0 But it was clear to me, very clear, that we had blown the cost cap.\u00a0 This was something that my own management did not want to hear, but there was no way that we could complete the work and stay under the program cap.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead David Grant’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

The delays and cost mounted, but the team still worked toward their March 2004 launch date.\u00a0 The stress of the situation affected work schedules and team morale, and the mission leadership had to find ways to keep people motivated and moving forward.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWe wanted to get to Mercury sooner\u201d<\/h2>\n

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cWe were projecting delays at that point in key subsystem deliveries that came to pass.\u00a0 One of the most painful was the spacecraft structure.\u00a0 That was subcontracted to an outfit called Composite Optics in California, because APL had never done a structure made out of composites.\u00a0 But we did it to keep the dry mass of the spacecraft down.\u00a0 Composite Optics is a fine company, but they\u2019re a small company, and the mission that they had to finish before us was MER [Mars Exploration Rover].\u00a0 MER was four months late on the delivery of their spacecraft, the bus that flew the MER to Mars.\u00a0 And there was nothing we could do.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo that set our integration and test schedule four months in arrears from the beginning.\u00a0 Because the spacecraft structure had to go to the propulsion system guys, who integrated it.\u00a0 And then those guys delivered an integrated propulsion system and structure to APL.\u00a0 So that put us deeper in the hole.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBut there were other things going on at the time.\u00a0 We were really sweating the inertial measurement unit.\u00a0 There was a company that built these things outside of Santa Barbara in Goleta, California.\u00a0 They were bought by Northrup Grumman.\u00a0 And Northrup Grumman decided to close the Goleta plant, and they tried to get people who knew how to do this to move down to Woodland Hills.\u00a0 Well, nobody who lives in Santa Barbara wants to live in LA.\u00a0 So none of them moved.\u00a0 So they had to reproduce the expertise to build these very complicated gyros.\u00a0 All new people.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThey missed every deadline\u2026. But there were other technical issues, and they were all eating away at our schedule. Still, we were working toward a schedule that would have had us go in our first launch window, which was March of 2004.\u00a0 There was another window in May of 2004.\u00a0 There was a third, less desirable window in August of 2004.\u00a0 So we had three windows, by good fortune, in 2004.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe particularly didn\u2019t want to have the August launch, because that was the energetically least favorable launch.\u00a0 The March and May launches involved cruise times of 5 years.\u00a0 The August launch, which is the one we eventually used, was a 6 \u00bd-year cruise.\u00a0 And so not only would we get to the planet much later, but there would be a big Phase E cost increase.\u00a0 So we didn\u2019t want to go there.\u00a0 We wanted to get to Mercury sooner.\u00a0 So, in the winter of 2003 we were still aiming for the March 2004 launch.\u00a0 \u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Sean Solomon’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n
At the Astrotech Space Operations processing facilities, an overhead crane lowered NASA\u2019s MESSENGER spacecraft onto a work stand. There employees of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, builders of the spacecraft, performed an initial state-of-health check. Then processing for launch began, including checkout of the power systems, communications systems and control systems. <\/div>\n
NASA<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThings kept coming up\u201d<\/h2>\n

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager<\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cYou need to have the subsystems delivered in a certain order.\u00a0 Well, first of all, many were being delivered late.\u00a0 We were shooting for a March launch.\u00a0 So, we made the subsystems move their delivery dates in. \u00a0That took more money to get that done.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cFor electrical integration and test, I had an 18-person team working double shifts, sometimes triple shift, sometimes seven days a week.\u00a0 There\u2019s an impact.\u00a0 The thing you have to be careful about is burn out\u2026. But we get through that summer.\u00a0 Now we were on schedule for launch in March of 2004.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWell, things kept coming up. \u2026So, around that time I met with Tom Krimigis and department management and I just told them that in my view we were not going to make the March launch date.\u00a0 I thought that the schedule reserve that we had was insufficient for where we were in the program.\u00a0 Still had nine months to go, more or less, and we didn\u2019t have enough schedule reserve.\u00a0 It was diminishing, and, in my view, I thought we should notify our sponsor that we were going to recommend a schedule slip.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cSo, we said, move the launch out to May of \u201904.\u00a0 Well, there was a cost associated with that.\u00a0 It\u2019s a couple more months of development time.\u00a0 It\u2019ll also impact down at the Cape [Canaveral, Florida].\u00a0 They were getting ready for the March launch.\u00a0 Now it\u2019s May.\u00a0 Okay, the launch day was going to be different but they have to keep the team together and that affects everything.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe got into the final stages of development.\u00a0 We completed integration and test and then the environmental tests over at Goddard and we had our pre-ship review here and everybody in creation was at it.\u00a0 We went through the pre-ship review and we go by the numbers.\u00a0 I present, the system engineer presents, the subsystem people present, autonomy people got up and spoke and said we\u2019ve completed testing.\u00a0 We\u2019re very confident of where we are, we\u2019re good to go, and ready to launch in May 2004.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\t\t\t\t <\/path><\/path><\/g><\/svg>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Now you could have cut the tension with a knife in the room \u2014 very high tension<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\"David<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

David G. Grant<\/p>\n

MESSENGER Project Manager<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cNow you could have cut the tension with a knife in the room \u2013 very high tension.\u00a0 So, the reviewers had a private room they all went into and voted.\u00a0 They came out and they say, \u2018Okay, Dave, we\u2019re going to ship.\u2019\u00a0So we got the team going and they packed the whole thing up, and we shipped it all to the Cape.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut something was wrong.\u00a0 Management was not at ease.\u00a0 We were not at ease\u2026. Not everybody was comfortable and I could sense that.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe shipped it and then the first weekend it was there and I got a call Sunday night from Mike Griffin [the new head of the APL Space Department] and he says that NASA was concerned about autonomy.\u00a0 \u2018Well, there\u2019s concern that we haven\u2019t done enough testing of the autonomy system.\u00a0 They want you to do more testing in several areas.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI said, \u2018Well if NASA wants us to do the testing, we\u2019ll do the testing.\u00a0 But they have to understand the consequences.\u2019\u00a0 If we go from May to August there\u2019s a development cost\u2026.\u00a0We have an Earth flyby, two Venus flybys and three Mercury flybys before we get into orbit.\u00a0 Also, five major propulsive burns.\u00a0 That\u2019s a lot more difficult trajectory than the May launch was.\u00a0 It\u2019s a much higher risk trajectory.\u00a0 Also, the cost impact could be as much as $30 million.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition, the margins on the spacecraft, the power margin, the thermal margin, were much tighter with this new mission.\u00a0 So, I said, \u2018NASA has to recognize that the risk is from launch to orbit.\u00a0 And you have to take everything into account. So you can keep that spacecraft here and do another few weeks of testing and go with Flight 2, or you can go with Flight 1 as approved at the pre-ship review.\u00a0 NASA\u2019s got to decide if the additional testing is worth it.\u00a0 It\u2019s a much higher risk mission at a much higher cost.\u00a0 But if NASA wants to do it, we\u2019ll salute and we\u2019ll do it.\u2019\u00a0 So Mike said, \u2018It\u2019s non-negotiable.\u2019\u00a0\u201c<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead David Grant’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

The launch window in August 2004 finally arrived, but the Florida weather made the long road a little more perilous.<\/em> On the second launch attempt, August 3, 2004, MESSENGER began it\u2019s long journey to Mercury.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cEverything was go\u201d<\/h2>\n

Sean Solomon, MESSENGER Principal Investigator<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cWe launched on the second day of an almost 3-week window.\u00a0 Vestiges of a tropical storm had stopped us the day before.\u00a0 The day didn\u2019t satisfy the constraints on clouds, but we came very close.\u00a0 We came within a few minutes of liftoff.\u00a0 We were out there at night, watching.\u00a0 And then the next night everything was go.\u00a0 Which was good, because another storm came through a day or two later that turned into a hurricane.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead Sean Solomon’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n
President Barack Obama congratulates MESSENGER Principal Investigator, director of Columbia University\u2019s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Sean Solomon, after awarding him the National Medal of Science, the nation\u2019s top scientific honor, Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014 during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington.<\/div>\n
NASA\/Bill Ingalls<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

After a successful launch, the team had to do come catching up on mission and science planning because of the delays in launch and the effect of those delays on the mission itself.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cA<\/strong><\/strong>n excellent spacecraft\u201d<\/h2>\n

David Grant, MESSENGER Project Manager<\/strong><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cSo right after we launched, we had to do the whole mission planning all over again, analysis that we had done before launch.\u00a0 Ordinarily you\u2019d have it all packaged up good to go.\u00a0 All the science planning had to be done again.\u00a0 All the mission design had to be done again.\u00a0 And. in the meantime, we had to learn how to fly the spacecraft, which involves a level of trial and error.<\/p>\n

\u201cInitially, the spacecraft was difficult to operate.\u00a0 We didn\u2019t know where the center of the gravity was.\u00a0 So when we did little thruster burns, for trajectory correction, there were errors, and they were significant enough that they had to be corrected.\u00a0 We had to learn how to deal with that.\u00a0 We had plume impingement\u2014that wasn\u2019t anticipated prior to launch.\u00a0 We had to deal with that.\u00a0 And in the meantime, there are literally thousands of different parameters onboard.\u00a0 Were they all right?\u00a0 No, there were a few that needed adjustment.\u00a0 Some were approximations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe first time we tried something, it didn\u2019t work exactly the way we had hoped it would, so we had to go back and correct it.\u00a0 Each of these events were characterized as anomalies; they had to be corrected.\u00a0 And we spent a lot of time doing that.\u00a0 The shakedown cruise for MESSENGER was much more difficult than I thought it was going to be.<\/p>\n

\u201cWell, a lot of new technology, and the first time out flying.\u00a0 It\u2019s like anything complex and new.\u00a0 But the engineering team stayed with it.\u00a0 They ran every problem to ground.\u00a0 They understood the reasons for the anomaly and fixed it.\u00a0 They were very thorough and diligent.\u00a0 And finally, one day, we all realized all the problems were pretty much fixed and that MESSENGER was an excellent spacecraft.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t
\n\t\tRead David Grant’s oral history<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n
The MESSENGER spacecraft atop a Boeing Delta II rocket lifts off on time at 2:15:56 a.m. EDT, from Launch Pad 17-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. MESSENGER (Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging) was on its way for a 7-year, 4.9-billion-mile journey to the planet Mercury.<\/div>\n
NASA<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t
\n\t\tRead more Discovery Program oral histories<\/span>
\n\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>
\n\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Keep Exploring<\/div>\n

Discover More Topics From NASA<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNASA Oral Histories<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNASA History<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNASA\u2019s Discovery Program<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDiscovery and New Frontiers Oral Histories<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/circle><\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n

Get The Details…<\/a>
\nSandra L. Johnson <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The excerpts below are taken from Discovery Program oral history interviews conducted in 2009 by Dr. Susan Niebur and tell the story of the hurdles the MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) mission team faced with the technical requirements of visiting Mercury, budget challenges, and schedule impacts \u2014all while keeping their mission goals [\u2026] Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>
Spread the love<\/div>
<\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/g><\/path><\/g><\/circle><\/g><\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/path><\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[34],"class_list":["post-11590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-astronomy_astronomia","tag-astronomy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zobi.alcowep.com\/bourtagshdrevxnls658739\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}