Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

Nuclear Powered Mission to Jovian Moons 378

Posted by michael from the need-more-power dept.
Skyshadow writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has an article about NASA's new project, the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter). The probe is designed specifically to search for liquid water and signs of life on Europa, as well as making detailed observations of Callisto and Ganymede. Planned for a 2010 liftoff, this new probe makes all previous interplanetary probes look wussy: it'll be 300 feet long and powered by a next-gen fission reactor (as opposed to nuclear batteries). Sure beats blowing money circling the earth over and over again..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Powered Mission to Jovian Moons More

Nuclear Powered Mission to Jovian Moons

Comments Filter:

  • Attempt no landing there (Score:5, Funny)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:18AM (#7677333) Journal
    Had to be said, what with a 2010 liftoff date (actually 2011 if you read the article.)

    The ship even looks quite a bit like Discovery.

    And I bet the NSA lies to this onboard computer too.
    • HAL-9000: What is going to happen? Dave: Something wonderful. HAL-9000: I'm afraid. Dave: Don't be. We'll be together. HAL-9000: Where will we be? Dave: Where I am now.

    • Re:Attempt no landing there (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      except that discovery was launched before 2001 in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the second mission got there in 2010.


      It had to be said.

    • Re:Attempt no landing there (Score:5, Informative)

      by Yeti7226 ( 473207 ) <arjen@kmphs.com> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:13AM (#7678362)
      In the Book 2001 the NSA (or whatever 3-letter agency) did not lie to HAL-9000. HAL was the only crew-member that was fully informed about the nature of the mission (studying the monolith in orbit around Jupiter). It was the instructions not to inform the human crewmembers that led to HAL's nervous breakdown and erratic behaviour.

    • If you've read this [amazon.com] you'll see some of the concept art for the Discovery before they settled on the final version. IIRC one looks exactly like this craft.

    • "Looks like Discovery" Re:Attempt no landing there (Score:5, Informative)

      by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:01PM (#7681662) Homepage Journal
      One of the "Making of 2001" type books describes the design process for the Discovery.

      At one point it had a nuclear pulse ("Orion") drive.

      There was serious thought to giving it whopping big radiators, which would make it look even more like this probe . . . but they didn't want people thinking they were wings!

      The design of this probe is a "classic," in the sense that it looks a lot like design proposals for nuclear-ion rockets circa 1960. One of the science encyclopedias I had when I was a kid had nifty pictures of 'em.

      Stefan

  • Nuclear Powered? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:18AM (#7677334) Journal
    The spacecraft would be the first in a series of robotic NASA probes that rely on uranium-fueled fission reactors to generate large amounts of electricity.
    Built in fission reactor, I can just think about what the enviromentalists will say, there was quite an uproar about the last mission which had nuclear material. You know, something about contaninating the earth if it blows up or is a little too low on the last lap around this planet

    • It gets worse... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:25AM (#7677381) Journal
      What if there is a failure of some sort around Europa and the probe ends up crashing on the planet?

      That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.

      Remember, recent NASA missions to the other planets have not all gone smoothly, so this is a very big concern.

      • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by frankthechicken ( 607647 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:28AM (#7677397) Journal
        Or alternatively that nuclear material could be the neccesary kick that life there needs.

        Personally I think we should drop a bunch of cheese and mayo sandwiches on the moon and see what happens.
        • Or alternatively that nuclear material could be the neccesary kick that life there needs.

          A far more likely outcome would be that the lifeforms of Europa would see a nuclear probe crashing into their planet as some sort of terrorist attack, or overt military action. It would only be a matter of time before their scientists developed rockets of their own to answer the threat posed by the strange creatures living within the the dangerous inner planet ring of the Sun. We would all be doomed, doomed I say!

          Of
          • Of course this is preposterous, but no more so than thinking a nuclear reactor would kick start life on a planet covered by ice sheets hundreds of miles thick.

            Unless of course that reactor melted enough ice too allow stuff to live there. Maybe if it did a core meltdown, the resulting steam would create a thermal vent to the surface as it melted its way down?

            I cite the machine at the end of total recall for creating an atmosphere. Couldn't a fission reactor melting through the ice do the same? Maybe no

      • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:39AM (#7677453)
        What if there is a failure of some sort around Europa and the probe ends up crashing on the planet?

        That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.

        You do realize that if you were to stand unprotected on the surface of Europa today, you'd be killed within minutes by Jupiter's intense radiation belts. This reactor would just be a tiny drop in an ocean of ferocious radiation.

        • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by YU Nicks NE Way ( 129084 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:54AM (#7677534)
          Welll....not exactly. If the craft were to hit the surface of any Europa (wildly unlikely) and if Europa actually has liquid water oceans with ice-covered surfaces (not proven), then the reactor would melt through the ice, boil a large volume of water, and then sink to the bottom of the ocean, which would contaminate the deep structures of the moon more than the Jovian wind does.

          However, (a) a reactor is a total nit on the scale of Europa, so the damage would be extremely localized, and (b) the moon itself is sufficiently tectonically active, due to tidal forces, that the reactor would be quickly swallowed up by the exolounar core, thus reducing its effects even more.

          Bottom line: it'd be a catastrophe, but not one as large as it appears at first.

          Your argument is a lot stronger when it comes to biological contamination, though. I haven't pushed the numbers, and I think that even a couple of hours in the Jovian magnetosphere ought to be sufficient to kill any unshielded terrestrial life forms which had contaminated the probe during assembly. I certainly hope so.

          • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Funny)

            by CrowScape ( 659629 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:07AM (#7677598)
            People said that I was daft to send a fission reactor to Europa, but I did it just the same! Sank into the ocean. So I sent a second one! That sank into the ocean. I built a third one! That one burned up, melted the ice and then sank into the ocean! But the forth one stayed up, and that's what you're gonna get lad!

          • If the craft were to hit the surface of any Europa

            At this point, I don't think there'd be any ill effects of dropping nuclear devices...

            wait, you didn't...

            Hm. You said Europa. My bad. NEver mind.

      • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:48AM (#7677490)
        "...That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there"

        Doubtful, Europa's surface is continually bombarded by huge amounts of radiation accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field(created by the Io flux torus [lowell.edu]), it is almost certinaly quite sterile.

        Even assuming the radioactive reactor eventually gets subducted back down into the oceans of Europa, big deal, Europa's oceans are thought to be at least 2 times as voluminous as all of Earth's oceans combined. One relatively small nuclear reactor (small relative to a nuclear power plant reactor anyway) diluted in a volume of water that vast is not going to be an issue at all.

        • Re:It gets worse... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Theory of Everything ( 696787 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:05AM (#7677912)
          That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.

          The possibility of contamination is precisely why the Galileo satellite was purposefully crashed into Jupiter [ucar.edu]. It was to prevent earth-based microbes (not nuclear material) from contaminating Europa, in the chance that it would eventually crash there after loosing power. Preventing biological contamination of enviroments in which life may have independently originated is of prime importance.

          Concerns of biological contamination could be addressed in future missions via proper sterilization of the spacecraft. This was not done with Galileo because there was no reason to do so at the time. It may have been sterile, but had not been checked as such.

          Though nuclear contamination was not the issue, Galileo did have nuclear material onboard for power (but not a fission reactor). This led to some folks speculate that NASA was trying to detonate Jupiter, [cyberspaceorbit.com] which is nicely debunked here. [badastronomy.com]

          Europa's oceans are thought to be at least 2 times as voluminous as all of Earth's oceans combined

          One of the main points of the mission is to confirm the existence of these oceans. The oceans are only inferred: we believe that there is a large liquid water ocean because of Europa's magnetic moment. The salt-water is conductive, and as Jupiter's magnetic fied varies, it induces a field in Europa. As Europa moves through various parts of Jupiter's field, the orientation varies. We detect this field and its variations, and deduce a large ocean. More information is here. [ucar.edu]
        • But the interior of Europa has a good chance of being almost completely free of radioactive elements, and there is no great cosmic stirrer that ensures that any crashing probe is uniformly distributed throughout the ocean.

          Radioactive contamination from the probe is a much smaller concern than biological contamination. But the bottom line is: the probe should not crash on Europa. In fact, it's not even clear whether we want to land there just yet; a detailed round of orbital observations and tests may sti

      • No it wouldn't (Score:3, Informative)

        by Galahad2 ( 517736 )
        Europa is already under extreme radiation. The speculation is that if life existed, it would live under the hundreds of miles of ice which cover the planet. Water blocks electromagnetic radiation extremely well (for example, visible light can't penetrate more than a few hundred feet -- ask any SCUBA diver), so it seems like it would absorb electrons and alpha particles pretty well too. NASA does need to be careful, but not with regard to Europa. If this probe blew up on launch it would be bad.
      • The missions have not gone perfectly, no. But take the recently ended Galileo mission. It was deliberately flown into Jupiter to avoid any chance of contaminating Europa.

        And Cassini, to the chagrin of the doom-and-gloom types, completed it's slingshot around Earth without smearing it's RTGs across our atmosphere, and continued out towards Jupiter.

        Even the shuttle and ISS. Yes, many things can go wrong, several of which will result in the loss of life of the crew. But none of those will result in anyth
    • Started looking around for information on flight safety for this system. I found this link[pdf] [nuclear.gov] [google HTML] [google.com]

    • Re:Nuclear Powered? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When it launches, they hang a sign on the pad: Gone fission...

    • Re:Nuclear Powered? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ottffssent ( 18387 )
      Probably. However, for a probe that large, it was really a necessity.

      The reactor will be providing 10+ times as much power as a battery-operated probe. This means more power to instrumentation, allowing for active devices like laser rangers, radars, and the like. It also means more power for propulsion (I didn't notice any mention of propulsion in the article, but flying about in Jupiter's strong magnetosphere probably means a lot of fine tuning can be done magnetically). And perhaps most importantly i
    • Environmentalists have been concerned about Plutonium-based reactors, which is a lot more hazardous than Uranium.

      However, there is the political question whether we want to endorse the use of large quantities of radioactive materials and fission reactors in space and whether we want to do so now. You can bet that the US military, the US nuclear industry, and US defense contractors are itching to deploy that kind of technology widely.

      But ask yourself this: how would you feel about Japan putting a fission

      • Unfortunately, you have a good point. Up until recently the U.S. had a good deal of trust from the rest of the world and, while some people might have complained, few would have been so uncomfortable with the idea that they'd openly oppose it. Until Iraq, we didn't go galloping around starting wars without good reason to (I will NOT argue this point with any trolls who respond - like it or not, much of the world sees it this way and THAT is the point of the statement) and, as a result, people didn't have m

  • in related news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by eegad ( 588763 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:22AM (#7677356)
    NASA will also launch a satellite to search for liquid water and signs of life over Arizona sometime late next year.

  • oohh... i bags naming rights (Score:4, Funny)

    by urban_gorilla ( 691918 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:23AM (#7677359) Journal
    can we call it GZK? to any who have not read Arthur C Clark's and IBM's "discussion" about the naming of HAL ignore this. actually just ignore it anyway :)

  • oops (Score:4, Funny)

    by adamruck ( 638131 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:23AM (#7677363)
    did anyone else read that big long link in the title as "looking for signs of life in europe"?

  • The just *can't* send this without a lander... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:24AM (#7677365) Homepage
    If you're going to go to all the trouble to send a gigantic (length of a football field) probe all the way to Jupiter, I don't know how you could even consider doing so without sending a lander to get a up-close look at Europa. It'd be like Columbus sailing all the way to the new world and not getting off the ship...

    I wonder, specifically, what instruments this thing'll have that will require their own little nuke plant as opposed to batteries. Articles were a bit sketchy on the details...

  • ISS a waste of money? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Boone^ ( 151057 )
    I hardly believe that a space station is a waste of money. There is much we still don't know about how humans react in 0 gravity and without an ozone layer. If we ever hope to have any type of manned exploration vehicles for our solar system we've got to "do our homework" first.

    With that said, ISS isn't the well-oiled machine I had hoped it was going to be.

  • haha (Score:4, Funny)

    by VAXGeek ( 3443 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:26AM (#7677386) Homepage
    We all know the REAL reason we're going there.

    TO NUKE THE MONOLITH IN 2010.

  • Not Nice (Score:4, Funny)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:26AM (#7677387) Journal
    to try and slashdot Boeing . . they might try and return the favor . . B-52 carpet bombing style :)
  • Nuclear fission in a launch vehicle is pretty bold, considering the history behind non-proliferation. I sure hope this one doesn't blow up on the launch pad.

    • Re:I have to say (Score:5, Informative)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:01AM (#7677569)
      Nuclear fission in a launch vehicle is pretty bold, considering the history behind non-proliferation. I sure hope this one doesn't blow up on the launch pad.

      In the 1970s, the Soviet Union launched several dozen fission reactors on naval radar satellites, most of which are still whizzing over our heads. (These orbits are expected to decay within the next couple of centuries.)

      Actually, a new fission reactor loaded with fresh fuel would be no big deal if it blew up. Uranium isn't all that radioactive before you start splitting it. With just a little bit of depletion, it's regarded as safe enough to spew liberally over battlefields (for some definition of safe). If you don't switch the reactor on until you're safely in orbit, you won't have much to worry about.

      The radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) that many of our current probes use are far more dangerous. They carry a considerable amount of a highly radioactive isotope of plutonium that has a half life of a few decades. The decay (not fission) of this isotope generates the heat to generate electricity with a thermocouple.

      A fission reactor starts out with almost no radiation, and it builds up as the fuel burns. An RTG starts out with maximum radiation, and it slowly decays over time. Clearly, the first choice would be better to strap into a rocket.

      • Re:I have to say (Score:2, Informative)

        by SchnauzerGuy ( 647948 )
        While looking up the previous USA space fission reactor, I came across this interesting site: Nuclear Powered Space Missions - Past and Future [free-online.co.uk].

        The most interesting information here is about the accidents - which there have been a surprisingly large number of, including an incident in 1978 where a 20-25% of a Soviet fission reactor re-entered and was scattered across Canada [fas.org].
      • Actually, depleted Uranium is what's left over (almost entirely U238) after they make enriched Uranium (3% or more U235), which is used in reactors (Excluding CANDUs, which use unenriched Uranium (0.7% U235)). Depleted Uranium isn't very radioactive; Enriched Uranium is. That's why it's usefull in reactors and bombs. It splits easiy.

        I'd be very surprised if NASA was planning on using anything other than Highly enriched Uranium, Plutonium, or a combination of the two.

        Also, a reactor running at equilibri
        • Depleted Uranium isn't very radioactive; Enriched Uranium is. That's why it's usefull in reactors and bombs. It splits easiy.

          Enriched uranium is more radioactive than depleted uranium. However, with a half life of 700 million years, even 100% enriched pure U-235 is much less radioactive than most other nuclear materials. (Like plutonium at 24,000 years or nasty waste products at a few decades or centuries).

          Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that splitting easily has anything to do with the inherent r

  • Hooray! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One step close to living out all my Cowboy Bebop fantasies!

  • Tempting Fate (Score:5, Funny)

    by tintruder ( 578375 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:39AM (#7677448)
    All These Worlds Are Yours, Except Europa. Attempt No Landing There.

    Wonder what the monday-morning-quarterbacking will be like when something bad happens?

    • All These Worlds Are Yours, Except Europa. Attempt No Landing There.

      Wonder what the monday-morning-quarterbacking will be like when something bad happens?

      Considering the quote you have is from a work of fiction, I'd say it doesn't matter what anyone says before or after. What exactly do you expect to happen, anyway? You do know the difference between real and make-believe, right?
    • That 2010 message was actually sent by the Germans, who laid out their beach towels there in 2009 ;-)

  • Whop!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:02AM (#7677572) Journal
    It is just tantilizing that out there, in our solar system, is another ocean.
    One in which you could actually swim (lack of oxygen aside and all)! geniune water, at a comfortable temperature...well, at least in a thin layer (below which is seething boiling death and above, vacuum-of-space freezing).
    The chances that this moon harbors life seem high. After all, we are all familiar with deep oceanic hydro-thermal vents and the bleached beasties that find the lightless life appealing.
    It is my dearest hope that someday a probe will melt down a few miles, pop into this blackened world, and turn on it's lights to discover mile-long whale-like creatures.
    Of course, it's most likely we will only find bacteria and other single celled dudes. But complex organisms are so much more cool...and kinda freaky.
    But sadly, as it is with this universe, I have the sinking suspicion that europa will ultimately yield nothing more than the biggest cache of sterile water known to man.
    Let us not also forget, intelligent life evolving in an environment where the outside universe is completely obscured by miles and miles of pitch-black ice might not be ready for the rest of the universe just yet [hhgproject.org].

  • Jaded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toxic666 ( 529648 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:04AM (#7677586)
    When NASA and its contractors can pull together a big project that works, I'll believe it. Until then I doubt their proposals. Since Apollo and Skylab, we've had an expensive shuttle, several failed shuttle replacements (over ten billion dollars wasted trying) and spam-in-a-can ISS. Manned space missions have turned into grandiose, miserable failures.

    On the other hand, the small unmanned projects with limited and well-defined goals have had some success. The microprobe analyses from the little Mars rover were very interesting. Viking did good work. Probes have left the solar system and still work. And there is the propect that the next Mars landings will do some good science.

    This proposal just smells of another huge project to keep funding and billing rates high for the sake of government jobs and contractor profit. No concrete details and a promise to Fundamentally Change Life on Earth.

    Stick with KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

  • Environmentalisim (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glendale2x ( 210533 ) <[su.yeknomajnin] [ta] [todhsals]> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:12AM (#7677630) Homepage
    I'm saddened by the fact that this thing will probably come under some extreme environmental protest simply because it contains the words "nuclear" or "reactor".

    Not to mention that the reactor is probably sturdy enough to survive an liftoff abort destruct, or falling back to Earth. These things aren't engineered to be large radation hazards.

    Besides, nuclear material goes up on a lot of spacecraft and the world hasn't ended yet.

  • This talk about Europa makes me wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by use_compress ( 627082 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:20AM (#7677671) Journal
    When scientists look for life out side the solar system, why don't they focus on moons of Jupiter like planets instead of finding Earth like planets. These Jovian planets could harbor moons that could sustain intelligent life. If you look at our solar system, two planets are good candidates for life (Earth and Mars) while three moons are good candidates (Callisto, Ganymede and Europa.)

    In the external solar systems we've found, most have had a Jupiter like planet orbiting near the star. This would expose it's planets to a similar amount of heat that the earth is exposed to.

  • Since I actually know something about this.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jnik ( 1733 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:27AM (#7677707)
    BU's Center for Space Physics had a seminar speaker talking about this a month or so ago. So, to answer questions:
    -The reactor will be started up in orbit and, like all missions carrying nuclear material, it's well-shielded and, even if it weren't, basically huggable without detrimental effects
    -The goal here is to provide a deep-space probe with a much larger energy budget than possible with RTG's. It's not really a LOT of power; just that RTG's are very little power. One interesting consequence of this design is the propulsion: ion drive, as tested on Deep Space 1.
    -Instrument package is by no means finalized yet; it's basically pie in the sky. That includes what exactly will happen with a lander
    -"What if something goes wrong" scenarios tend to be based on the idea that stuff can "fall out of the sky." It can't. The people running the mission know where things are going
    -To the poster who said "small cheap missions are better": the manned program tends to be the money sink (as were all the examples you quoted). The really small cheap unmanned missions have a sadly high failure rate. This is more like Galileo or Cassini or Magellan: big, expensive, and incredibly valuable in scientific return. There's a place for small and cheap, but outer planets missions are expensive no matter what. You can't afford two baskets, so you make a *really good* one.

    In short, this is a chance to do a pure science probe the likes of which we haven't seen before. It's incredibly exciting and pushes our true exploration of the solar system further.

  • Now THAT'S a spacecraft! (Score:3, Informative)

    by OldManAndTheC++ ( 723450 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:27AM (#7677709)
    Man I hope this gets built. Such an improvement over the wimpy space probes we've put up so far.

    Here's a nice drawing of the design [nasa.gov]. Anyone know why the reactor is all the way at the front and the thrusters are at the back??

    They also mention on the JPL site that the propulsion system (and I guess much of the rest of the proposed design) was vetted on the Deep Space 1 mission. Some interesting reports on the technology here [nasa.gov].

    • I haven't seen data on the mass of the reactor vs. the mass of the ship, but if it's a reasonable proportion of the overall mass...

      If those thruster pods have side-facing thrusters (which they must, though on first glance they look rear-facing) they might simply be using leverage to turn the craft around a point on the mast, toward the reactor.

      This is, of course, completely out of my ass.

  • fission reactors = heavy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oohp ( 657224 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:29AM (#7677721) Homepage
    Aren't fission reactors and lead shielding a bit heaavy for that? It's the main reason nuclear powered airplanes never flew (well the Russians had one that flew but most of the staff operating it died as it was not shielded at all). The idea sounds more feasable than in the case of aircraft because as soon as it's in space you don't need to worry about mass to much. But the point is, transport of spare parts for the reactor is going to be very expensive.
    • as you move to higher and higher powers, nuclear reactors become more and more cost effective, since theres a large upfront mass penantly, but additional kilowatts of output dont cost as much (diminising returns)
  • Anyone concerned about the nuke aspect should investigate the procedures and methods used aboard our nuclear fleet of suface and submarine vessels. They have very good safegaurds, and the subs nuke ractors can withstand the pressures at the bottom of the sea and not leak. I would trust that they would ateast make them as safe. But, because it is so important I would like to see close oversight of the whole thing.
  • What I'm most personally interested in are those moves that might make space commercially viable. The Chinese are talking about mining the moon-that is exciting to me and may have a lot more long term impact IMHO than purely scientific missions.
  • The Monolith said to leave Europa alone!

  • 20m(+), not 300ft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:17AM (#7677958) Journal
    This [nasa.gov] picture specifies a 20m boom, which appears to be over half the length of the spacecraft. I didn't find any reference to 300ft (or metric equivalent) at the JPL website (but feel free to correct me if it is there.) Eyeballing the picture, 20m for the boom implies about 35m total length. By comparison, 300ft is about 90m.

    The 300ft figure is in the newspaper article. Possibly it is an error, possibly the reporter knows more than I do.

    I am curious as to how they will launch something so long. Presumably it will be collapsed in some way, and expand after launch. Allowing the (presumed) heat-pipe connections between the reactor and the radiators in a collapsable configuration sounds like a challenging engineering problem.There is no indication of how it would collapse - telescoping and folding seem the most obvious.

  • $8 Billion??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kingdon ( 220100 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:30AM (#7677997) Homepage
    I'd say "no thanks" to the price tag. I'd rather have 12 or so of the New Frontiers programs (which are about $700 million and powered by an RTG - see http://centauri.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/ ).

    That way you can launch a mission every year and when (not if) one blows up, you didn't have all your eggs in that basket.

    I don't long for the bad old days of the 70's and 80's, in which there was one mission a decade (Viking, then Galileo, then Cassini, with nothing in between).

  • Size (Score:3, Funny)

    by SilverCanary ( 670633 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:27AM (#7678207)
    ...makes all previous interplanetary probes look wussy: it'll be 300 feet long...

    Tsk, tsk. It's not size that matters. It's how you use it.

  • Europa first (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tqft ( 619476 ) <ianburrows_au @ y a hoo.com> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:29AM (#7678210) Homepage Journal
    What else can you do with a big highly powered probe like this?

    Mmmmm - Pluto? Kuiper Belt? Oort Cloud?

    My favorite:
    A 500 AU Mission - using the Sun as a (gravitional) lens to look closely at other systems directly. Something 500 to 600 AUs is the Sun's focal length for the visible part of teh spectrum. High bandwidth real time images of other solar systems - any takers?

    • Using Sun as gravitational lens? Yeah, right (Score:4, Interesting)

      by StupendousMan ( 69768 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @09:33AM (#7679648) Homepage

      Great idea. Go 500 AU away from the Sun, then take out your big telescope and ultra-sensitive visible/IR detectors and point them back at ... the Sun. You'll see a blindingly bright object, magnitude -13 or so. And your goal is to search for planets around other stellar systems, which might be, what, apparent magnitude 25 or so?

      "But the gravitational lensing will amplify the light from those faint little planets!" you cry. Amplify by how much --- you need a factor of over one trillion in order to bring these planets up within one-millionth the apparent brightness of the Sun. Oh, and by the way, you'll be magnifying the STARS around which those planets circle by this same amount, which won't make the planets any easier to see.

      Take a look at one of my course WWW pages [rit.edu] describing the difficulties of direct detection of planets to get some idea of the practical difficulties. Using the Sun as a gravitational lens won't help at all.

  • But this is ridiculous!
    > designed specifically to search for liquid water and signs of life on Europa
    We are here! There's life in France, Italy, Spain, UK..... well maybe not there.. ;)
    Sending a 'space' mission to search for us... Oh! you said nuclear powered? So they call 'them' space missions now.

  • Who cares about water? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:55AM (#7678664)
    Why doesn't NASA just give up and announce that they've discovered large oil reserves on Europa?

    We'll have humans there in two years!

  • Space Exploration Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MikShapi ( 681808 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @06:21AM (#7678752) Journal
    One good way to get from Europe to the US is to get in a row boat and start rowing.
    Another is to go work someplace for a month and use the salary to buy a plane ticket.

    NASA's rowing. I've taken the time to read the Space Elevator Phase II NIAC paper [spaceelevator.com]. For a good many years now, composite fabric with a higher and higher percentage of carbon nanotubes loading(hence a higher and higher tensile strength) is produced each year. Moreover, each year the scale of production jumps higher and in a very non-linear fasion. They were at 5% CN loading in March 2003 (as of the writing of the NIAC Phase II summary paper), promising 15% in a few months and techniques that will allow 25% and higher.
    According to the current estimates, this will get us to elevator-worthy fiber in mid-2006.

    If NASA really wanted to get to Europa, they'd funnel the 10 bil at CN research, building power-transmission lasers, hammering out the political hurdles and building a working elevator. Then they could send a manned boomer sub to Europa if they wanted, probbably for less money than this new idea of a white elephant.

    For those too lazy to go read the paper, here's the piece that'll interest us:

    "The University of Kentucky has published and patented on fibers 5 km long with 1% carbon
    nanotube loading that achieved a tensile strength increase from 0.7 GPa to 1.1 GPa. Recent
    results have included producing fibers with tensile strengths of 5GPa with ~5% CNT loading.
    Steel has a strength of 3 GPa and Kevlar is at 3.7 GPa. This process used multi-walled carbon
    nanotubes. This implies a roughly 100 GPa carbon nanotube strength or an interfacial adhesion
    roughly 1/3 of theoretical. However, we must remember that in the current process only the
    outer nanotubes are being functionalized and attached to, the inner tubes are not being fully
    utilized. Understanding this implies that by finding a method to utilize the inner shells would
    enable production of material performing close to theoretical maximum. A complimentary
    technique now being developed at Rensealler Polytechnic Institute allows for the pinning of
    the walls in the multi-walled tubes together so that all of the tubes can be used. Techniques at Foster
    Miller will also allow for dispersion and implementation of the carbon nanotubes in the
    composite at much higher loadings. Loadings over 25% have been demonstrated and higher
    levels are possible. By combining these techniques the resulting material should have a tensile
    strength near theory of 150 GPa for 50% loading. Material at 12 GPa (4 times stringer than
    steel) is expected in the coming months and the full strength materials should be available within
    two years at the current research rate."

    "Hear that, NASA? That is the sound of inevitablity..."
    • While I to am very interested in elevator technology. Some progress must be made with propulsion technology. I don't think an elevator would be so useful if it spent a majority of its time transporting fuel. And as others have pointed out it is better than spending it on things that orbit the earth and far better than things that go "BOOM". What are you guys doing with a defense budget three times that of the rest of the world put together?

      But my expectation is that any money approved by GWB is meant fo

  • Cosmos 954 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spacerog ( 692065 ) <spacerog@spacerogu[ ]et ['e.n' in gap]> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @08:04AM (#7679082) Homepage Journal

    Has everyone already forgotten about Cosmos 954 [hc-sc.gc.ca]?

    On 24 January 1978, COSMOS 954, a Soviet nuclear-powered surveillance satellite, crashed in the Northwest Territories. The crash scattered a large amount of radioactivity over a 124,000 square kilometre area in Canada's north, stretching southward from Great Slave Lake into northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.
    At the time then President Carter called called for an agreement with the Soviets to prohibit earth-orbiting satellites with atomic radiation material in them. Unfortunately this was never enforced.

    And for a little history [free-online.co.uk] of Nukes in space.

    - SR

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close