Dr. Stamatios M. (Tom) Krimigis has his fingerprint on many of the unmanned space missions that have left this planet, from the Mariner spacecraft that did the first flyby of Mars in 1965 to the Cassini spacecraft that is still sending back data from Saturn today. He designed a particle detector that continues to operate on both Voyager 1 and 2 as they travel out beyond our solar system. To honor his long career at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, he was awarded with the 2015 National Air and Space Trophy for lifetime achievement. Dr. Krimigis spoke with departments editor Heather Goss in January.
Air & Space: One of your biggest accomplishments is getting NASA to start its Discovery Program—a series of innovative, low-cost spacecraft missions—in 1992. You got a lot of pushback when you began promoting this idea. What made you think it was the right path for NASA?
Krimigis: It was the right path for the NASA planetary program, which is an important distinction. The Explorer program had been in existence since the beginning of NASA. It was mostly solar and space physics and some astronomy, but it had been a program that had a certain amount of money every year for missions costing—most of them—less than $100 million apiece.
However, no one had thought of applying that concept to the planetary program. The closest that the planetary program had come to a low-cost concept in the 1980s was the Planetary Observer program, and that started out as an effort to spend like $300 million for a Mars mission. By 1989 it was already pushing $500 million, and everyone was guessing that it would end up costing more like $1 billion. At the time I happened to be a member of NASA’s Planetary Science Subcommittee to study the new missions, and I said, “We’re looking at the wrong paradigm. Why don’t we adopt the Explorer concept as a potential low-cost planetary missions program?” Jeff Briggs was then the director of planetary exploration at NASA, and after I described the concept and how it could be used, he came up to me and said, “Would you like to send us an unsolicited proposal so you can study it from the Applied Physics Laboratory?” That eventually gave rise to the Discovery program.
We came up with a concept that would be less than $150 million per mission [through the first month of operations], and when that report became public most people sort of laughed and said, “oh yeah?” Up until that time every planetary mission was costing several hundred million or more. Of course it’s not just enough to suggest an idea; the proof is in the pudding. If you’re really going to push a new concept then you have to demonstrate that it works. We competed at that time with JPL and were selected to do the NEAR mission, which was the first Discovery mission. We had estimated that it would cost about $112 million, which was substantially less than the $150 million guideline, and by the time we finished it had cost us about that amount, so we ended up turning money back to NASA, which had never happened before. I have a picture of me giving a check to Dan Goldin and Senator [Barbara] Mikulski after we launched NEAR in 1996.
Now, more than two decades after the Discovery Program started, cubesats are the big trend, and there’s talk about using them for planetary missions. Do you think that’s a real option, or is that concept overhyped a little bit?
I think it is overhyped for a very simple reason: You need a certain amount of power to send data back from a planet, and that means you’ve got to have fairly large solar panels, which are of course heavy and somewhat expensive. On the other hand, there are concepts [involving cubesats] that people could use, and I think they’re being circulated as we speak, about getting more science out. For example, you’ve probably heard about the Europa Clipper mission, and in fact it was [proposed] in the NASA budget for the first time this year. The intent is to go and orbit Europa, the satellite of Jupiter, and that’s going to be a fairly big and expensive spacecraft, but what can one do with cubesats? Well you can have a number of small cubesats that you can shoot off from the main spacecraft that would collect data at different places around Europa simultaneously and transfer the data to the main spacecraft, which would then send it to Earth. That kind of scheme would work in the sense that it really enhances the science, and for not very much more cost, because you cannot just send a cubesat to Jupiter on its own. There isn’t enough power and mass and everything else to really do a decent job on the science.
You worked on the Mariner program in the early 1960s, including Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to fly by Mars. What it was like to be a part of these early missions?
Needless to say, for a graduate student it was an exhilarating experience because at that time things were moving very quickly. Professor [James] Van Allen, my thesis advisor [at the University of Iowa], called me into his office and said, “How about being the co-investigator on Mariner, the first mission to Mars, and building an instrument that could discriminate between electrons and protons?” I said, “I’m not sure I know how to do that.” He said, “You’ll learn.” That was his way of teaching you—he’d throw you overboard and see if you could swim.
The launch was a year and a half away. I finally got that detector working about a month before we launched. It was an agonizing experience but it was a lot of fun. At the time we knew about the Van Allen belts of Earth, but nobody knew if any other planet had radiation belts. Our main objective was to see if there were Van Allen belts at Mars.
Of course, we flew fairly close to Mars but we didn’t find any radiation belts. That was a big disappointment. But we discovered other things on the way, things like the fact that the sun was emitting fast electrons, which nobody knew before that time. That’s how I learned firsthand how to do things fairly quickly in building space hardware; but we also built some Earth satellites at Iowa—the first university-built spacecraft were actually built at the University of Iowa. So when I came to APL and found that they were already building spacecraft with a very short timetable, it was easy for me to fit into the culture—I already had it. That’s what led to eventually saying, “Hey, why can’t planetary missions be done like this?,” which led to the Discovery program.