Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space

Join the Efforts of a Manned Mission To Jovian Moon Europa 212

Posted by Soulskill
from the get-serious-about-emigration dept.
Kristian vonBengtson writes "Objective Europa aims to send human beings to Jupiter's icy moon, Europa, on a one way mission in search of extraterrestrial life while expanding the borders of exploration and knowledge for all mankind. The starting point of Objective Europa is purely theoretical (Phase I) but will move into more advanced phases including prototyping, technology try-outs, and eventually a crewed launch. Objective Europa is a crowd-researched project made up of an international team of volunteers. Many people from a wide range of backgrounds have already joined and become a vital part of the mission. ... [Europa's] deep ocean and active geology provide a solid platform for extraterrestrial life, making Europa one of the most enticing locations to explore in the solar system. The 600-day flight required to reach Europa is manageable with today's technology, and the many challenges of such a mission pose a perfect starting point for new research and innovative thinking."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Join the Efforts of a Manned Mission To Jovian Moon Europa

Comments Filter:
  • FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geek (5680) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @03:47PM (#44887729) Homepage

    "Objective Europa aims to send human beings to Jupiter's icy moon, Europa, on a one way mission in search of extraterrestrial life"

    Seriously, before you throw your lives away, at least get a minimal amount of evidence that life exists there. I'm sure lots of "special" people will apply for this but none of them will be the types we actually want going there.

    Just send a fucking probe. Don't BE a probe.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gl4ss (559668)

      well it would still be an adventure.

      but I guess the real reason for this is the success a similar thing for going to mars had. I mean success in getting money from suckers.

    • Game Over. You and all of your friends are dead.

    • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @04:16PM (#44888039) Homepage Journal

      You can die in pain in dirty diapers in a nursing home, or you can die of radiation-induced cancer doing something that's never been done before and making historic discoveries. Either way is an equal level of deadness.

      • by mi (197448)

        With that said however, dead is dead no matter how it happened.

        If it is the same to you, sir, I'd like my deadness to a) set as late as possible; b) be as painless as possible.

        Neither objective is particularly achievable via a one-way travel to an icy rock.

        • b) is achievable if you go there with cyanide pills.

      • "You can die in pain in dirty diapers in a nursing home, or you can die of radiation-induced cancer "

        So you also will die in pain in dirty diapers, only without lightly dressed nurses around.

        Let me think...

    • by Dr. Spork (142693)
      Yeah. By the time this mission could launch, our robots will actually be a lot more capable of doing useful research on Europa than the human settlers, especially when you control for all the mass that needs to be launched in order to keep people alive (and not crazy) for as long as this would take. Instead of people, why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath? If we have a chance of finding something cool, it will be down there.
      • by Teancum (67324)

        Yeah. By the time this mission could launch, our robots will actually be a lot more capable of doing useful research on Europa than the human settlers, especially when you control for all the mass that needs to be launched in order to keep people alive (and not crazy) for as long as this would take. Instead of people, why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath? If we have a chance of finding something cool, it will be down there.

        I doubt it. While I will agree that there is considerable "low hanging fruit" in terms of very legitimate science that can be done by sending robotic probes, there will reach a point in that research where having actual people physically there will make a whole lot of sense. With the distances involved, bandwidth for sending data can be a considerable problem. Some local synthesis of the data (like was done with the Kepler mission... which had terabytes of data to sift through) can take place in an autom

      • Re:FFS (Score:5, Funny)

        by turbidostato (878842) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @08:57PM (#44890035)

        "why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath?"

        Because submarines' flying abilities, even when nuclear, compete in the same league as pigs.

      • by Shadowmist (57488)

        Yeah. By the time this mission could launch, our robots will actually be a lot more capable of doing useful research on Europa than the human settlers, especially when you control for all the mass that needs to be launched in order to keep people alive (and not crazy) for as long as this would take. Instead of people, why not send a nuclear submarine that could use its reactor to melt through all the ice and then navigate the sea beneath? If we have a chance of finding something cool, it will be down there.

        The nuclear submarine would still face one major problem. The ice layer surrounding the ocean is MILES thick, maybe as thick as the crust here on Earth. Perhaps a nuclear sub might be able to melt its way through. (that assumes that you could get that much payload to Europa.... a pile with that kind of wattage just for waste heat is going to be HEAVY. That still leaves the rather thorny issue of the ice tunnel immediately freezing above it. How in tarnation are you going to get your data through?

    • by Agent0013 (828350)
      Well we could send all the telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, and advertising account executives. I would throw in the politicians and lawyers also, but that's just me.
      • Well we could send all the telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, and advertising account executives. I would throw in the politicians and lawyers also, but that's just me.

        I'd send the politicians and lawyers first. Advertising account executives and MBA's would be next. If that doesn't kill all life on Europa, then we should surrender to our new Jovian overlords.

    • Re:FFS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @04:51PM (#44888375)

      There are conditions on Europa very similar to the conditions in certain places on earth that contain life. There are large chunks of shit that have been flying back and forth between there and here for billions of years. They've retrieved man made objects that have been in space for decades with bacteria on it that survived and re-animated after being thawed on earth. It would be more astonishing if there we didn't find life on Europa... and pretty much every other planetary body in our system.

    • It looks to me like assisted suicide in the disguise of scientific research
      • by rasmusbr (2186518)

        It looks to me like a student thesis project in art or sociology or whatever. I mean the website...

        I don't think anyone is actually planning to do this.

    • by gagol (583737)
      Seems to me it would be people we will not miss. Natural selection and all... make nice CGI and forget the mission, just launch thr spacecraft and forget about it. Only idiots would apply.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @03:49PM (#44887743)

    All these worlds are yours EXCEPT Europa.

  • It is a role playing game at this point. Tabletop exploration of Europa.

    • How does "I want to do something and don't know how" take precedence over things that actually start the right way.
      I have wanted space technology since I was a child and wanting is not a project. First you study and then you design and then you test something that will serve to do the job and -then- you decide how to apply it. I have worked on this for decades and found a technology that I am reasonably certain will allow cheap travel in and out of the gravity well. All I was ever interested in was getting
      • by jbeaupre (752124)

        I work with a lot of startup companies. We have a saying that might apply. Lots of people think that the idea is the key. We say that say ideas are cheap, execution is key. And sometimes a bad idea done well can beat a good idea done poorly.

        I know that doesn't give any real help. But it does help explain why some things take off when better ideas don't.

        • I have worked with startup companies too. The first started with 1000k for year in a do or die configuration and we eventually made several billion for the parent company.
          One of the people who was hired there is now the secret weapon for Micron. Sometimes it is the people and that person in particular was a modest genius, which is rare.
          In this case I am not looking to make a company that makes money. I hear about a lot of people who would pay to die on Mars or Europa and wonder what they are smoking. Eff
  • ... I'd just move to Greenland. Probably wouldn't even take me 600 days or millions of dollars to get there.
  • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @04:00PM (#44887851)

    "Objective Europa aims to send human beings to Jupiter's icy moon, Europa, on a one way mission in search of extraterrestrial life while expanding the borders of exploration and knowledge for all mankind.

    If you think it would be fun to go to Europa even if it means you will die there, that's totally something you should try to do. As for science and exploration, there is really nothing that a human being is going to be able to see or do, beyond what can be done by a robot.

    Adding humans to a space mission just makes everything harder, because now you need to bring a whole bunch of shit like water, food, waste treatment machines, CO2 scrubbers, radiation protection, space suits, and extra rocket fuel to propel all this extra mass and even more rocket fuel to propel the extra rocket fuel. The only time when sending humans on a space trip would be beneficial to the human race at this point would be if the earth became full, and we needed to lower the population without killing people or sterilizing them.

    • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @04:05PM (#44887905) Homepage Journal

      Because they are orders of magnitude more productive.

      The principal investigator for the Mars rovers said that if he were on Mars he could do in 45 seconds what the rovers do in a day.

      Besides, visiting a foreign country is different from looking at it through a webcam. A robot probe is just an improvement over a telescope. Humans want to go to places.

      What worries me is that the site has only one passing mention of radiation, for a mission to Jupiter orbit. Aren't humans in that region going to be almost literally fried?

      • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @04:51PM (#44888373)

        So what's a human supposed to do on Europa? Operate a hammer and icepick? That doesn't sound very productive. That 45-second figure on Mars sounds hyperbolic, since on good days, the rovers can actually go pretty far and take lots of pictures.

        But here's what I don't get about people who make comments like yours: Instead of looking at current missions and wishing that humans were there to do it better, why not instead ask what humans would do in space, and wish for (and design) machines that could do it as well. I mean, be concrete. For all the mission specific objectives (beyond: what happens to a person there?) that manned missions have - whether it's reconnaissance, construction, experimentation, etc. - I am pretty sure that it would be less expensive and less risky to make robots that could preform them equally well, less expensively and more safely. I think that's been the case since basically the Apollo era, when human lives were cheap and autonomous systems were miserable. That's the good reason why the Apollo era ended in 1972. The NASA home run of the 70's was the Voyager program. Then we pissed away the 80's shuttling people to LEO for no very good reason.

        And if you compare the primitive rovers of today to manned missions, keep in mind also that the latter would be several orders of magnitude more expensive, and what amazing advances we could make if those budgets were going to robotics and autonomous systems. Maybe those robots really could do in 45 seconds what yesterday's rovers take a day to do. I mean, for fuck's sake. We have cars that can drive better than my mom.

        • Being able to fix a stuck wheel has some value, as does being able to make new instruments on the scene from parts in the lab.

          But that line of thought presupposes that gathering data is the only thing humans care about.

        • by khallow (566160)

          That 45-second figure on Mars sounds hyperbolic, since on good days, the rovers can actually go pretty far and take lots of pictures.

          And on bad days, nothing happens, meaing it takes 0 seconds to do what was done. I think a good comparison here is between the Mars rovers and the corresponding manned lunar rovers of the Apollo program. They travel about the same distance. Apollo 17, for example, had three excursions of the lunar rover, each a bit over seven hours, for a total of somewhere around 22 hours of time on the Moon, the longest set of the Apollo program. They covered almost 36 km of distance over that time. The MER rover, Opportu

      • Jupiter's radiation belts are pretty extreme; there's some info in the Galileo data. :)

        We can't possibly carry enough shielding for the x-rays alone... and get there in a reasonable time.

        A Jupiter mission will have to launch from Mars orbit, IMHO; unless we learn a new engine technology.

        Although;
        I still think we should send as many people to Mars as will go; I'm sure when the postcards about the Ham Bushes and Blanket trees come rolling in from Mars, and how we were completely mistaken on the whole there no

      • What worries me is that the site has only one passing mention of radiation, for a mission to Jupiter orbit. Aren't humans in that region going to be almost literally fried?

        Wikipedia says there is enough radiation on the surface of Europa to kill a human in a single day (it's tidally locked with Jupiter, but I'm not sure if that helps the far side or not). I imagine they're headed to the subsurface ocean, if it exists, so they won't have to worry about it after they melt/drill their way through as many meters of ice as it takes (the Mars One site claims that five meters of Martian soil provides the same protection as Earth's atmosphere). But yeah, they'd definitely need to d

      • Because they are orders of magnitude more productive.

        They also are orders of magnitude more difficult to get to mars or Europa healthy and stay that way for any length of time. If you could spend the same amount of money that a manned mission would cost on an unmanned mission, you could afford an order of magnitude more and better robots as well.

        Besides, visiting a foreign country is different from looking at it through a webcam. A robot probe is just an improvement over a telescope. Humans want to go to places.

        As I said, it's fine if you want to go to Europa and see it for yourself before dying. This doesn't help science at all. Having one person there doesn't magically make everyone else able to experience Europa. All

      • by Graymalkin (13732) * on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @07:33PM (#44889619)

        The principal investigator for the Mars rovers said that if he were on Mars he could do in 45 seconds what the rovers do in a day.

        I think you're talking about Steve Squyers, the principal investigator for the Mars Exploration Rover missions. He's a really smart guy and he's not wrong in his statement you're quoting. To wit, Apollo 17 astronauts collected about 110kg of lunar rocks during 22 total hours of EVA and drove a grand total of 36km while the Spirit rover only drove about 3.6km and examined (but did not collect) about 25 rocks over the course of 8 months.

        However you simply cannot use this data to imply that humans sent into space are magically more productive than robotic probes. A field geologist would need to do a day's worth of work in 45 seconds on Mars because they would die of asphyxiation in about three minutes. To prevent that they would need to carry around their own oxygen. To keep it from floating free it would need to be contained in some sort of mask. The freezing temperatures would then kill that geologist within a few hours so instead of a mask they would need a whole insulated airtight suit. To keep from dying of dehydration within three days they would need water. Now that they would survive the night they would need food or else they would be ineffectual in their explorations after a few days and dead of starvation within a few weeks.

        From there it only gets worse. In order to do really interesting work the field geologist would need some tools, not the least of which is a camera and a transceiver to talk back with Earth about their findings. To do anything more complicated would likely require more complicated tools. To keep these out of the elements (dust storms, intense UV radiation, Martian attack, etc) the field geologist would likely need some sort of habitat.

        So really the field geologist needs literally tons of logistics behind them to do the work of an automated probe. That's a lot of non-mission specific mass to send to Mars just to support the single capable field geologist. With the extra mass comes expense and added complexity of the whole system.

        Why not skip the extra bullshit and send more automated probes to Mars that were designed by an army of field geologists? You could send a dozen such missions for the same cost as a single manned mission and end up covering every major geologic region of the planet. You could also fill up its orbit with a squadron of multispectral imaging satellites that could relay data as well as collect their own.

        I understand the desire to plant a human being on Mars but at the same time the pragmatic part of me interested in the actual science would rather see a dozen automated missions sent first. Putting inanimate objects in space is Hard, putting living things in space and getting them home still alive in Very Hard, putting people on the surface of other bodies is Extremely Hard, and putting people on the surface of other bodies having them do useful work while there is a damn moonshot (pun intended). Getting them home from said body is a "nice to have" and a minor miracle when it occurs.

        Humans can be more effective in some places than robots but they're not necessarily more efficient than robots. If you've got limited will/funds the robot is usually the better option.

        • "I understand the desire to plant a human being on Mars but at the same time the pragmatic part of me interested in the actual science would rather see a dozen automated missions sent first."

          But then, the really pragmatic part of me knows that there will be no way for those dozen automated probes to gather the willness of citizenship and so, be financed, unless there's the expectation of sending a man to plant his feet over there.

      • by Shadowmist (57488)

        Because they are orders of magnitude more productive.

        The principal investigator for the Mars rovers said that if he were on Mars he could do in 45 seconds what the rovers do in a day.

        Besides, visiting a foreign country is different from looking at it through a webcam. A robot probe is just an improvement over a telescope. Humans want to go to places.

        What worries me is that the site has only one passing mention of radiation, for a mission to Jupiter orbit. Aren't humans in that region going to be almost literally fried?

        On the budget it would take to send that ONE human to Mars and keep him alive in one place, We could have more rovers operating on Mars than NYPD has cop cars.

      • by Evil Pete (73279)

        The problem with sending people to Europa. Well problemS. In random order

        • 1. This is Jupiter space. Heavy radiation levels, therefore heavy shielding on everything. Complicates everything.
        • 2. How thick is the ice on Europa? 3 km, 5 km, 10 km? Good luck getting a submersible through that and back out again.
        • 3. Two years there. Two years back. What is the likelihood of failure of components?

        It is just so dodgy. I would love for humans to go to Europa, it would be amazing. But you have to be realistic. This not l

    • If you think it would be fun to go to Europa even if it means you will die there, that's totally something you should try to do.

      What about people who - at the moment of selecting the flight crew for such a mission - suffer from conditions that would kill them or debilitate them before an otherwise normal lifespan elapses for them? If you're bright and physically apt and you know that at 25, you'll be fine for a few more years, but after 30, there's a 50% chance every year that you'll get Huntington's and by 40, you'll be dead, perhaps dying a bit sooner after benefiting mankind in this way is not such a crazy idea.

      • Of all the reasons I stated for why it was bad to send humans to Europa, the humans dying on Europa was not one of them. I don't even care if we send healthy people to Europa to die, if that's what they want to do.

        What I am against, is pretending that this is necessary for scientific discovery or exploration. We can actually fit more and better scientific instruments on the spacecraft if we don't need to take any meat sacks and all the stuff required to have the survive the journey.

    • by Agent0013 (828350)

      If you think it would be fun to go to Europa even if it means you will die there, that's totally something you should try to do. As for science and exploration, there is really nothing that a human being is going to be able to see or do, beyond what can be done by a robot.

      I can think of one thing a human can do that a robot will not be able to do. That is get infected with the European bacteria and come down with the first interplanetary cold or flu. That would be some exciting TV there!

      • by hedwards (940851)

        You seriously think that a robot can't become contaminated? Anyways, that's what quarantine is for. In the extremely unlikely case that there's something on a planet with no lifeforms similar to humans, there is a virus or bacteria that's harmful to us, what do you think the odds of us picking it up is?

        Pretty much zero. Even with the flu, if you stay 10 feet away from other people and don't put your hands to your face the likelihood of catching it is minimal. And that a virus that's adapted to spreading eas

        • Bacteria don't need to have evolved with humans to be able to infect them (e.g. like viruses). All that is needed is for bacteria to be able to survive inside a human and for whatever they produce to be toxic to humans. This doesn't seem like such a stretch considering some bacteria can live in harsh environments like volcanoes and that most things are toxic to humans.

          I think a bigger danger is humans contaminating Europa. You can kind of sterilize a robot. You can't sterilize a human. Humans contain e

    • by black3d (1648913)

      We won't be sending humans on a one-way trip. That's a pipe dream at this stage. Short of a dictatorship forcing people to go, the government is not going to send people on a one-way trip to a moon with no prospect of survival. Those who volunteer for such an endeavour are generally not going to be useful to your mission in a scientific capacity.

  • Wow, the second voluntary exodus plan to emerge recently.

    It seems to make a statement about Earth, when thousands seem eager to make a one way trip to their probable deaths, to leave this planet.

    Now, what that statement actually means is open to interpretation...

    • Why not just sign up to a UFO Death Cult like Heaven's Gate?

    • Do explorers flee their home, or rush toward their destination?

    • While I think this particular project (and the one to mars) are unrealistic due to not being robustly funded and planned, I think the concept that some humans may be willing to greatly shorten their lives in order to go off and explore something new shows that there is still hope for humanity. Isn't it nice to hear that some are curious enough and adventurous enough to do this, instead of simply being focused on entertainment and producing more humans?

      I would not be brave enough to do this myself, even if I

      • by rts008 (812749)

        Thanks for the reply. :-)

        What my motive was....stirring up the mud puddle in order to start some interesting debate/comments.

        If I had a realistic chance to go to Europa or Mars, I would probably jump on it.

        I've always been one of those that just HAD to see what was over the next hill.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      Plenty of explorers and experimenters have died too. For example, how did we learn certain plants are poisonous? (just think, at least one dead human for every major type of plant in the "nightshade" family, that's quite the body count). There are worse ways to die and more useless ways to die than after exploring in space. In the time it took you to read my post some people choked to death on tough food, some were run over by cars, some were gunned down by street punks, some fell into a hole and died, s

  • ...done that. Interesting, but went badly for the crew [wikipedia.org] ...

  • Send a probe. If the moon really is able to harbor life, sending humans risks contamination.
  • Humans are messy and carrying a bunch of biosphere from Earth to support them could potentially end up disrupting Europa's biosphere if it has one.

    One can easily sterilize an unmanned space probe, but preventing even the slightest smallest leak of sewage, spacesuit leak, or the one little bit of plant waste that gets accidentally vented from a greenhouse is probably more challenging than actually sending humans to Europa.

    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      Exactly. Send an imperial probe droid to look for life on all the planets and moons. Seriously, doesn't anyone watch Star Wars?
  • Can't think of any other reason to put out this sort of wacko mission. Let's see, if it costs 20 Billion and I take just a 1% cut in salary and bennies ... my retirement is guaranteed.

  • The last thing we need is a bunch of humans spewing bacteria on a planet/moon that we're trying to examine for extraterrestrial life. One small slip and they could fuck things up for the rest of time.

    Clarke had it right. Attempt no landings.

    • It'll be fine, they'll be dead before the ship lands, so no one is going to open the door.

      NASA knew there were radiation belts around Jupiter.
      The Pioneer probes they sent were designed to handle a fair bit of radiation.
      Pioneer 11 didn't directly pass through one, but lost most of the pictures it took of Io.

      20 years later when they sent Galileo, it still suffered the effects of radiation, losing data.

      NASA has already ruled out any possibility of a manned mission to Europa, because the radiation on that moon

      • It turns out that others have done some real work on this. There may be on the order of a meter of regolith which could be heaped on a shelter much faster than one could burrow into the ice. The leading hemisphere gets less radiation than the trailing hemisphere. I personally would look into a long deployable loop of superconductor to provide a pocket magnetosphere.

        Unfortunately, the number that all those measures are chipping away at is one lethal dose per day. Add in the exposure while getting there in th

        • Current methods still won't stop you getting a lethal dose of radiation on a journey from Earth to Mars, let alone Jupiter, which is over 6x the distance.

      • by Shadowmist (57488)

        Everyone wants to go to Europa though, because it has oxygen in its atmosphere and (frozen) water on its surface.

        Europa does not have an atmosphere. It has a fluctuating mesophere like our moon from occasional venting, and water ice as hard as Earth rock, but if you're thinking of skinny dipping on Europa, you're a bit shy of reality.

        • Some people think it may have liquid water under the surface.

        • oh... and the term mesosphere, means the middle section of Earth's atmosphere. It is a part of an atmosphere.

          The atmosphere of Europa may be of very low pressure, but it's still there.

  • ... than the plans for a one way mission to mars.

    At least the one-way trip to mars has the merit of *SOME* sort of contingency for actually surviving there (not that I think it will be effective... I still believe that such manned missions to mars are merely a drawn-out way to commit suicide, and I don't expect anyone will live more than 2 years after launch).

    But what the hell are their contingencies for surviving on Europa?

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      what contingency what that be, neither place can support multicellular earth life and quick death is certain without oxygen, warmth, food, water, and adequate radiation shielding.

  • Didn't someone figure out that the one-way trip to Mars would be one-way for more than logistical reasons? The other being, with today's technology, the radiation exposure would give you cancer on your 9 month journey.

    The folks on the IIS are within Earth's protective magnetosphere.
    The folks who went to the moon didn't go for 9 months.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      cancer not an issue, the radiation levels are lethal by the outright mass death of cells. Anyway, there are methods for shielding, I'd say the main objection to a "crowd-sourced" space trip to anywhere would be the lack of billions of dollars and experience that only a few space agencies on earth possess.

      • The problem is there is no current method of shielding that is effective enough that you can put on a space craft.
        You've got to either carry something huge and heavy, like a a bunch of lead to absorb the radiation, or generate your own magnetosphere, which requires more energy than we can generate on earth, let along in a space craft (the Earth has current flows in the order of a billion amps)

        • by rubycodez (864176)

          Actually, light weight nucliei are better for shielding in space because much less secondary radiation produced. The slower protons cause more damage than the high energy ones which pass through the body without time to interact.

          No need to recreate an "earth's magetosphere", there are alternative designs such as having opposing strong fields that in the center of the ship where the crew is the field intensity is low. Also combined electrostatic and magnetic designs. Quite an engineering problem though.

          • by rubycodez (864176)

            but you are right, nothing like today's craft would be useful at all, they are death traps outside low orbit.

  • None of this wannabe Solaris soundtrack jazz. Here ya go:

    http://youtubedoubler.com/a7Kj [youtubedoubler.com]

    .
  • Wolfe didn't mean it literally, but these guys do.

    (actually... Wolfe wrote it in a book so isn't it literal? whatever)

  • Don't mod me anywhere. I just want to join the voices pointing out that this makes no sense. A one way mission? That at least halfway makes sense with a Mars mission, but we know a whole hell of a lot less about what it would take to survive in orbit around Jupiter and we have no idea if there is even life to be found. What are they going to live on? How long a they planning on living? It would take a multi-trillion dollar space station to even make an attempt at a renewable, sustainable environment - and i
  • by BobjoB (321819) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @05:21PM (#44888643)
    So basically someone just saw Europa Report and decided to copy the entire movie premise. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2051879/ [imdb.com]
  • is this a joke? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by binarstu (720435) on Wednesday September 18, 2013 @05:36PM (#44888753)

    I looked around on the site a bit and watched the introductory video, and underneath the shiny veneer, there really is not much there. The video, for example, certainly looks pretty, but contains no useful information. Instead, it has a few amusing text bites, such as, "FAREWELL CREW... BEFORE YOU DIE... YOU MAY SHOW US LIFE". The whole thing seems a bit tongue-in-cheek. After seeing the site, I really wonder if it is a joke intended to point out how ridiculous the "one-way trip to Mars" plans are. I suspect the site is intended to drum up a lot of interest and volunteers (much like the call for Mars trip volunteers), so that the punchline can be delivered later when it is revealed that the whole thing is based on a completely silly proposition.

    Or, perhaps I just hope that this is a joke and not for real...

  • "All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there." (2010: Odyssey Two). Do we really want to tempt fate that way? Next thing you know, we'll have computers killing astronauts, Jupiter turning into a star... just too risky ;)
  • There is an alarmingly widespread mindset on slashdot that seems to suggest that every action taken by humans must be solely motivated by improving the "success" of our species (where "success" is resource acquisition, improvements in technology, whatever else increases the expanse and longevity of our species), as if we're in some galaxy-wide race to proliferate ourselves. But increasing the expanse and longevity of humanity does not necessarily mean we will be happy (the only thing which humans truly see
  • All these worlds are yours except Europa.
    Attempt no landing there.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...