AVCO - Jupiter Entry Probe (1971)

[Graham1973]

1971 design for a Jupiter Entry Probe designed to sample the atmosphere of Jupiter down to a level equivalent to 17 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth. The proposed carrier vehicles were, TOPS, which would had the medium gain antenna from the baseline design replaced with one that could both act as a communications link to Earth and as a relay antenna for the entry probe and Pioneer which would be fitted with a specially designed relay antenna.

This design can be considered the ancestor of the entry probe that flew on the Galileo mission in the 1990s


Jupiter Entry Probe - Configuration



Jupiter Entry Probe - Instrumentation (Dark = Selected)



Thermoelectric Outer Planets Spacecraft (TOPS) - Launch and Flight Configurations



Pioneer - Launch and Flight Configurations



The documents covering the design are currently unavailable from the NTRS so I'm making them available via box.net.

https://app.box.com/s/egkrovmmu09u5rrjwybe

 

[OM]

The documents covering the design are currently unavailable from the NTRS so I'm making them available via box.net.

https://app.box.com/s/egkrovmmu09u5rrjwybe

...Excellent find, sir! I've been working on sorting out my space history document archives, and this will be a welcome addition.

 

[bigvlada]

Why design the capsule that can withstand only 17 atmospheres when Venera 7 was designed for 90?

 

[Bill Walker]

Why design the capsule that can withstand only 17 atmospheres when Venera 7 was designed for 90?

Lots of possible reasons, hopefully someone with actual knowledge of the programs can give a more detailed answer. Sometimes the secret to success is knowing when to quit. Venera 7 was designed to reach the surface, but only provided 23 minutes of partial data after a parachute failure at much higher altitude. No such thing as a "surface" on Jupiter. Also, it is much harder and much more expensive, kilo for kilo, to deliver hardware to Jupiter than it is to Venus.

It would be interesting to know if the 17 atmos level in the Jupiter atmosphere was a "break point" of some sort: would transmissions from deeper be more difficult, or were there other factors that made spacecraft survival below 17 atmos problematic?

 

[Graham1973]

Why design the capsule that can withstand only 17 atmospheres when Venera 7 was designed for 90?

Well the baseline design was supposed to go to 1000 atmospheres, but the AVCO designers were unsure if the probe would even survive the re-entry heating.

The earlier (1970) Jovian Turbopause Probe was specifically designed to carry out all of its science prior to the onset of maximum re-entry heating and then burn up.

 

[Michel Van]

Another possible reasons, is the time window were the Jupiter Entry Probe can transmit data to the Relay.
that's Space craft who drop the probe, if this a fly-by space probe,
It have limited time frame for the Data transfer from Jupiter Entry Probe to relay over fly-by space probe to Earth.

so a limited Data transfer time, means that probe can build only for 17 atmos level
what make the Jupiter Entry Probe much lighter with 362 Lb. against Venera 7 with 1080 Lb.
again a another reason why.

 

[OM]

Venera 7 was designed to reach the surface, but only provided 23 minutes of partial data after a parachute failure at much higher altitude.

...Bill, can you cite source on this? Perhaps a translation of a Russian failure analysis report, hopefully a copy of which is online so I can add it to my own records?

 

[Bill Walker]

It is from Wikipedia (I know, I know...), but it matches my memory of press reports at the time.

 

[bigvlada]

Why design the capsule that can withstand only 17 atmospheres when Venera 7 was designed for 90?

Well the baseline design was supposed to go to 1000 atmospheres, but the AVCO designers were unsure if the probe would even survive the re-entry heating.

The earlier (1970) Jovian Turbopause Probe was specifically designed to carry out all of its science prior to the onset of maximum re-entry heating and then burn up.

This is interesting, do you have any document concerning baseline design?

 

[OM]

It is from Wikipedia (I know, I know...)

...No, no, that's not an invalid source where about 90% of the tech articles are concerned. It's when you get into genre media that the suspension of disbelief must be turned up to levels that not even Slippery Jim DiGriese could reach. Most of it has to do with the problem of letting the inmates run the asylum without first confirming that they *are* inmates and that they -deserve- to be accredited as such. Far too many Wiki admins achieved their admin powers by using Sock Puppets to vote them into office, and then reinforced their ill-gotten abilities by creating as many as five more "Hoze Admins" to back them up whenever they make a controversial ruling - most of which involve reverting edits for the simple fact that they've staked ownership claim to the article(s) in question, and are simply pissed that they didn't make the edits first. The true test was to simply wait six months, and check to see whether the admin who did the reverts went and added the same info and took credit for it.


So yeah, while Wikipedia's not one of the more credible sources, when it comes to the tech-based articles I'd not turn it down as the sole source if no other source could be located online within a reasonable amount of time. Better Aerogel than real smoke, so to speak...