It is a nice thought, but reusable boosters is a new concept and only one company has them, right now.

As for assembly line production of space probes, that sounds nice when said fast, but when you slow down to think about it, each planet, moon, asteroid, or other object needs unique instrumentation and has other limitations.

Pluto has a collapsing atmosphere that is the reason they sent a probe now, rather than a decade from now when the atmosphere is gone; it needs instruments to study that phenomenon under a very low light condition. Jupiter has a magnetic field that needs study. We want high resolution photographs from Mars orbit. Saturn has its own unique planets and a set of rings to study. Scientists want rovers on Mars, but not on Jupiter, and they want to return samples from asteroids, which works differently than returning samples from Mars. In addition, power sources for various destinations have to be different. Making a one-size-fits-all probe will not work for most of these differing missions. Too much mass would be wasted on low productivity instruments, and all that mass would require the largest rockets for not-so-distant destinations.

Even on Mars there are different landers, rovers, and satellites used in order to search for different things. There has been some per-unit cost savings in the past by launching two Viking landers and later launching two rovers, Spirit and Opportunity (incorporating lessons from Pathfinder), but when each Mars 2020 rover costs so much, then only one is budgeted. Even the Mars 2020 rover is saving costs by using as much of the Curiosity rover design as possible.

As for the use of the latest technology, someone has to fly the newest tech in order to prove that it is ready for prime-time use in space. Otherwise we would still be flying 1960s era technology and getting more data that we already have from the 1960s.

I had a recent email exchange with a famous planetary scientist that devolved into shock and pearl clutching.

I sent this individual a link to a story on Musk wanting to launch megatons of payload on an annual basis in ten years, on the possibility of a Starkicker upper stage sending hundreds of tons at a go to the outer planets, of probes being an assembly-line commodity not made of fragelium anymore. I asked this individual to envision what the possibilities would be freed from the limitations of the current paradigm and they had a seizure. This email exchange ended in condescension and an admonition to go ‘F’ myself. This soulless minion of orthodoxy couldn’t even have a civilized, adult discussion about the matter.

This individual who had years ago hoped for an SLS to launch probes to the outer planets expressed horror that Musk would commit those resources toward space colonization.

They were aghast at their monopoly being busted and their private playground becoming an everyman’s realm.

The gatekeepers are starting to shift from denial to alarm.

Beware Elon, if you read this, the planetary protection mafia are sighting-in their guns for you, they will not go into that long night without a fight. You represent a huge threat to the established order and the orcs are starting to stir…

And most especially, beware any Ciclopsian hands extended your way, there is likely a knife in the other one.

That reason alone is why I am a huge proponent of NASA’s role as a customer to commercial programs.
There are others reasons too but being at the mercy of politicians is the reason why we are still waiting to go back to the moon, get to Mars, and other parts of the inner solar system.

Not enough opportunities for graft that way, though.

I think graft is only part of the problem.

The other problem is, and we saw this with the grumbling from scientists about the ICEMAG cancellation, is that the science community insists on packing the most advanced possible instruments on these missions, even if their development is immature. “Tech greed.” This was a big problem with JWST, where there are so many bleeding edge components and instruments on the critical path. That kind of thing costs money, even when your contractor *isn’t* a grifter.

I have often pondered your idea of late of some standardized sats that could be built and deployed en masse to various planetary destinations. I’ve had one engineer in the business tell me that’s not workable. But I simply don’t know enough about the practical aspects to make an assessment. But I do think that, one day, something like it *will* happen, as a byproduct of commercial activity.

Jupiter, to be sure, would be a special case, because of the shielding needed against the enormous electromagnetic radiation. Europa Clipper has something like 150kg of titanium to shield its processors for just this reason.

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by the decision to cancel the ICEMAG magnetometer last year. It was a sign that Zerbuchen was actually *trying* to keep a lid on the budget and prevent JWST-style inflation.

I have to say that, as dysfunctional as NASA is, the planetary science programs have been….relatively tolerable in terms of cost containment and schedule. Still not good enough, but also not in JWST or SLS/Orion territory, either. I attribute this to better management at JPL and the relative lack of congressional kibitzing. Planetary science remains the one area where NASA (or at least its centers, primarily JPL) can claim some laurels.

But yes (:sigh:) there is the launcher question. I am praying that the sole good thing I saw in the HR 5666 bill, the directive to NASA to prepare a fast report on commercial launcher options for Europa Clipper, actually survives markup and reconciliation. (I have heard that it has a good chance.) If it does, NASA can at least save itself a billion dollars or so off the top by launching it on a Falcon Heavy with kick stage. Yes, it will take a few more years to get to Jupiter, but then as things are going now, it will end up sitting in a JPL clean room for that long anyway to wait for an SLS launcher to be ready to launch it.

Now, if we can just cancel SLS altogether…

Not enough opportunities for graft that way, though.