NASA May Send Landers To Europa In 2020 156
wisebabo writes "So here's a proposal by NASA to send landers to Europa to look for life. They are sending two landers because of the risks in landing on Europa. They got that right! First is the 500 million mile distance from the Sun, which will probably necessitate RTGs (Juno uses solar panels, but they are huge) and will cause at least an hour of lag time for communications. Then there is the intense gravitational field of Jupiter, which will require a lot of fuel to get into Jovian and then Europan orbit. (It's equivalent to traveling amongst the inner planets!) The radiation in space around Jupiter is tremendous, so the spacecraft may need to be 'armored' like Juno. Landing on Europa is going to be crazy; there aren't any hi-res maps of the landing areas (unlike Mars) and even if there were, the geography of Europa might change due to the shifting ice. Since there is no atmosphere, it'll be rockets down all the way; very expensive in terms of fuel — like landing on the Moon. Finally, who knows what the surface is like; is it a powder, rock hard, crumbly or slippery? In a couple respects, looking for life on Titan (where we've already landed one simple probe) would be a lot easier: dense atmosphere, no radiation, radar mapped from space, knowledge of surface). If only we could do both!"
Shouldn't be NASA. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
At least - if they make a mistake and I see something odd in my back yard I know why.
Call the robot Robin. (Score:2)
Pictures: http://www.google.nl/search?q=bassie+en+adriaan+robin [google.nl]
What its from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassie_%26_Adriaan [wikipedia.org]
Ten years late, but still..... (Score:5, Funny)
exactly! (Score:2)
Re:exactly! (Score:5, Informative)
"All these worlds Are yours except Europa Attempt no Landing there"
Yep, that part is from the book 2010 by Arthur C Clarke
The rest is from a crappy movie based on the book
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are thinking of 2001. Parent is talking (correctly given context!) about 2010.
2010 was not trippy, like the latter half of 2001; 2010 was quite straight forward really.
It's a bit dated now with the whole cold war sub plot, but otherwise a pretty good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's LITERALLY dated now that we've already passed 2010.
But the US still has a Cold War -- it's just with China now. [a more complicated Cold War, certainly, but despite the economic relationship the militaries of the two nations see each other as a primary threat] And once they get their space program in full swing and the US program continues to deteriorate, I could see a tense joint mission between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, unlike during the first Cold War, the US military now is completely incompetent since they actually get their military hardware from their primary threat. Back during the first CW, the US never got any of its military hardware components from the Soviet Union; there were no Sovtek chips in US gear. Not so any more. Now lots of the hardware comes directly from China: flat-panel displays, electronic components like ICs and capacitors, plus plenty of counterfeit parts because the defense contra
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't have working knowledge of US military hardware internals, and if I did I certainly couldn't comment about it, but I imagine to some extent you're correct. Though there's still a big difference of knowledge and skill between base parts and a final design. For instance, getting photos and material samples from a downed US stealth fighter or helicopter doesn't mean the Chinese can go right out and build one of their own, or automatically absorb the theory and science behind it. But they are improving m
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to know anything about the internals, other than they use common parts like flat-panel LCD screens (doesn't everything these days?), and electronic components like resistors, capacitors, and ICs. Many of these parts now come from China; we even had news articles recently about how a bunch of US military hardware was failing because it was built with (Chinese) counterfeit parts, which of course failed prematurely.
The fact that China controls the production of much of this stuff means that if
Re: (Score:2)
Why couldn't they keep all the stuff they make and trade it among themselves, rather than shipping it overseas in return for IOUs?
Re: (Score:2)
I worked on the DEW line back during the late '70s and early '80s. The vacuum tubes for our comm equipment and radar (finest 1950's tech) came from Poland, which was part of the Warsaw Pact.
Not really (Score:2)
I know you are getting this from elsewhere so I can be frank without being insulting - don't take it personally because the stupidity is not yours. It's really a very stupid analogy when you think back to the 1970s and not really anything like the cold war at all.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been a while since I read the series, but wasn't it 2010 where the Russians and Americans end up doing a joint mission and competing with the Chinese?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I guess Clarke was a little too pessimistic about Russian and US cooperation and Chinese competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Daily Mail stories should be treated with suspicion, if not outright derision. For example [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The Daily Mail has a long history of distortion, hysteria and outright lies, not to mention the hilarious incompetence shown in the example. Not trusting them is the right course of action. I'm sure you could find a debunking of this article somewhere online, but I'm not doing it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually fuck it here [fas.org] you go.
Re: (Score:2)
All these worlds Are yours except Europa Attempt no Landing there Use them together Use them in peace........ Better not hack them off, Jupiter will disappear & turn into another sun LOL.
We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill - Star Trekin'
The awkward moment... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The awkward moment... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Landers? (Score:2)
Re:The awkward moment... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, it's a lot less expensive to get a lander to Europe, and the chance of finding any intelligent life is only marginally worse.
Re: (Score:2)
lmao
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I thought that was one of my funnier posts this month, but the mods obviously did not see it in that light. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Yeah. I was hoping the haters would throw away some mod points on me with -1 off-topic to take away some heat. Humor on /. gets little love.
NASA in 2020? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it'll still be around since no one would want the political fallout from ending it. The staffing and facilities might be a little smaller, though.
His desk will be over in that corner.
plausible deniability (see the US Postal Service) (Score:5, Informative)
A group of congress people killed it , on purpose, by making it pay-forward its pension fund for 75 years. Almost no company could survive that.
Is that what any of the news reports say? No. Most of them say "oh, email killed it". complete horse shit. if they hadn't had to pre-fund their pension, they would have been rather profitable in recent years. Unlike, say, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, General Motors, Chrysler, and every other bailed out shit hole full of ivy league douchebags and hedge fund assholes.
Re:plausible deniability (see the US Postal Servic (Score:4, Informative)
That's pure spin. Changing the USPS to account for 75 years worth of liabilities brings it in line with the private sector. It used to be under normal government accounting rules, which are a lot more "flexible." If anybody in the private sector tries the accounting tricks the government lets itself get away with, they find themselves on the sharp end of an audit pretty damn quick.
In the private sector, federal law requires you to fully fund a pension plan, including all future liabilities. That's stricter than the USPS's 75 year requirement. In practice they're pretty similar, because you're not likely to have any significant liabilities beyond 75 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a retard. Obviously not all companies offer pension plans. Companies that offer pension plans, on the other hand, have to fully fund them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly how the private sector works. If your pension funds' assets drop below its liabilities, the company has to inject money to correct the imbalance. IIRC, you have about 3-5 years to do so.
Re:NASA in 2020? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
- Cold war is over, the pissing contest of space superiority isn't nearly as beneficial as it used to be (unless their becomes more military incentive, then perhaps we'll see a resurgence in contractor money flow).
- Budgets cannot always be enlarged. We will eventually hit a funding wall. And say perhaps the budgets are continually increased, well with 'quantitative easing', inflation / depreciation of the dollar and lack of proper reve
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NASA in 2020? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's existence and funding is practically guaranteed because the US government and military will never allow other countries to exceed the US space capabilities without a fight. Space is the ultimate high ground. The original moon landings were directly related to the US - USSR competition for space and technological advancements. Budgets can always be enlarged if necessary. As it is most countries in the world are still trying to develop tech the US had in the 60's.NASA is still a going concern although some people will never give them any credit unless they produce a warp drive.
Uhhh....no way.
What countries, TODAY, can launch men into space? Answer: China and Russia.
Does NASA have a clear path forward to manned spaceflight? Answer: No - it's many years down the line, if ever.
OK, how about commercial space. Isn't NASA funding commercial space programs? Answer: Yes, but the funding has been dropping rapidly, as powerful lobbying interests (re: Boeing, other established Aerospace players) want to preserve their big cash cows. So wildly innovative companies like SpaceX are in danger of losing funding, all in the name of crony capitalism.
It's all pretty damn depressing if you ask me. I wish you were correct, but you're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because having more than one human habitation in the solar system will lessen the risk of our extinction. And we can't very well test that effectively with drones.
Dropping rapidly? (Score:2)
Now, along comes CCDEV, [wikipedia.org]
which spent 50 million in 2010 for 5 companies.
Spent 270 million in 2011 for 4 companies.
and 500 million in 2012 for 3-4 companies.
Now, I am opposed to what the neo-cons (and a single idiotic dem) have tried to do to private space. HOWEVER, the fact is, that O HAS manag
Re: (Score:2)
While in theory I agree with some of your premises just like "cosm", I have another problem to add to his:
- Have you seen the morons running for President lately? And have you seen the way the idiots at the voting booth vote these days? If one of the Republicans gets elected, I wouldn't be surprised to see NASA get the ax, along with a bunch of other Federal agencies, no matter how little sense it makes to national security. Say what you will about China, but at least they actually have smart people runn
Re: (Score:2)
The race to the moon was more about the US catching up with the USSR that had already been sending humans into orbit for a few years before NASA managed to to get a guy just into space (not orbit). Despite getting more German rocket scientists the US has been concentrating on long range bombers and spy planes, where as the USSR realised that space was, as you say, the ultimate high ground.
Before his assassination Kennedy discussed a joint moon mission with his Russian counterpart. They had developed a good
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that none of the Nazis are now in a better world. Being roasted whilst being jabbed with pitchforks for eternity hopefully.
First Contact (Score:3)
I always knew there was a reason why we weren't understanding each other.
For the love of Dave, No! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mr Monolith (Score:5, Funny)
I am writing to inform you that we have indeed taken your warning to heart. In order to avoid making contact with Europa, we have placed NASA in charge of the project, thus insuring that your admonition will be heeded for the foreseeable future.
Yours truly,
The people of Earth
P.S. Sit back and enjoy the occasional fireworks display in low Earth orbit or between Earth and Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is, they better sterilize the hell out of this thing. And then do it again.
The last thing I want is for them to find life, but be uncertain about whether or not it came from earth, a repeat of the Surveyor incident. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Misread headline (Score:5, Funny)
ahaha like that moron Clarence Darrow (Score:3)
i agree. society would be much better if we simply settled our disagreements like they did before lawyers - by having one baronial lord force a group of peasants, under penalty of death, to attack another, in a never ending cycle of pointless, ego driven violence and bloodshed, resulting in the cultural stagnation of entire continents for centuries at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What fantasy land do you live in that that was before lawyers?
Ah, the second oldest profession.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a history major, so this might not be completely correct, but you both might be right. The thing is, the Romans invented a lot of very advanced stuff (not just technology but social and political institutions as well), which all disappeared during the Dark Ages and was slowly brought back or reinvented during or after the Enlightenment. Remember, they had running water and plumbing during Roman times too, but that all disappeared after the fall of the Empire, and took over 1000 years to come back.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now, he might be on to something. We need to get back to basics, give the lawyers swords or lances and let them go at it. So shh. His version is much better than letting them talk at each other wearing togas.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's depressing how much better that was than what we have now.
lawyer jokes - fun at parties! (Score:2)
i remember the last great party i went to. tons of lawyer jokes. TONS. not old, not outdated! just like moon boots and friendship bracelets.
Re: (Score:2)
2027: Frivolous 1, a mega spaceship that all of humanity has gathered together to build, launches into space with the majority of the world's lawyers on board.
2035: A Zeta Reticulan delegation approaches Earth and demands compensation for pollution of their star system.
Re: (Score:2)
2027: Frivolous 1, a mega spaceship that all of humanity has gathered together to build, launches into space with the majority of the world's lawyers on board.
2035: A Zeta Reticulan delegation approaches Earth and demands compensation for pollution of their star system.
Why would we send lawyers into deep space and risk an interstellar incident when it would be so much easier to shoot them into the sun?
nanobots (Score:3)
it seems to me that dumping thousands of nanobots across the planet would be easier than relying on one big lander to safely and smoothly land on an unseen location.
i guess the problem is you cant pack nice instruments into a nanobot. or... can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Then they can combine, using the crust for raw materials, and form a giant city with human-form repli... no, wait....
Re:nanobots (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems to me that dumping thousands of nanobots across the planet would be easier than relying on one big lander to safely and smoothly land on an unseen location.
Yes, exactly. Not only that, but instead of burning so much fuel to get into Europa orbit and land on the surface due to the high gravity in the Jovian system and the lack of atmosphere on Europa, it would make a lot more sense to use antigravity engines, or better yet simply teleport probes to the surface. Why don't we do that?
Re: (Score:2)
They tend not to survive the fall from orbit very well.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many problems with nanobots. Energy (energy sources can't be miniaturized effectively), communication (you need a strong laser to reach Earth from there), locomotion (a nanobot will not be able to move much), resilience (the nanobots won't be able to survive the harsh conditions). And yeah, the smaller they are, the less payload they can carry.
JFK (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
JFK? I wonder why anyone would want to name their kid after an airport?
True. We can't let the Commies get to Europa befor (Score:3)
... oh wait.
The commies are now running sweatshops that make our cellphones. Ah well.
With help from ESA (Score:2)
Wow, I misread that badly (Score:3)
I thought the headline said "NSA May Send Lenders to Europe in 2020"...
I was wondering why they were going to wait so long.
This does not sound like a right schedule (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed; the original article doesn't properly reflect that this is JPL wishing for a pony.
Until the beginning of this year, NASA and ESA were working on a joint mission called EJSM (Europa Jupiter System Mission), incorporating a Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO) from NASA and a Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter (JGO) from ESA. That derived from an earlier joint mission concept called Laplace which was proposed to ESA's Cosmic Vision call in 2007 as a Large (L) mission. EJSM would have launched (on two separate rocke
Way Too Late (Score:3)
Here's the problem, if the probe lands in 2026 I'll be 67 years old and I might not be able to appreciate it. Some speed here would be appreciated guys!
Oh, and GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!!
Ganty
Re:Way Too Late (Score:5, Funny)
Why? The nursing home should have a TV. Just ask the nice nurses to switch to the NASA channel.
Moons like Europa might be best place for Life (Score:4, Insightful)
From the previous slashdot story about "Rare Earths". The argument was made that the a large moon (which may be very rare) might be necessary to keep a planet's axis from wobbling. But what about an exo-moon around a (much larger) planet?
If having a large moon helps stabilize the earth's rotation, what about if an exo-"planet" is, in fact a moon around a much larger (probably gas giant) planet, just like Pandora in the movie "Avatar"? One would imagine that any variation in its climate due to wobbling would be completely eliminated.
While the "exo-moon" would almost certainly be tidally locked to the giant planet, as long as the orbital period wasn't too long (a week?) the difference in temperature between night and day would hopefully not be too pronounced. For example Io, has a period of 1.7 days. If the moon had a really thick atmosphere (like Titan) then this would probably not matter in the slightest as the "air" would likely distribute the heat quite effectively (but could be windy!).
Another thing we've learned by looking at these moons orbiting the gas giants is that they could have almost any amount of tectonic activity which is important for things like plate tectonics which is sometimes regarded as being essential for its effects on our climate. From super-volcanic Io to frozen Callisto, we see that tidal effects from a gas giant can pump hugely varying amounts of energy into a moon.
Of course, radiation may be a concern for most DNA based life (some DNA based life, like tardigrads are remarkably resilient though). I don't know why some gas giants like Jupiter have lethal (to us) amounts of radiation while others don't. So maybe this is a non-issue.
So maybe we should be looking for exo-moons orbiting gas giants in the habitable zone! How many are there? Obviously I don't know but there don't seem to be any dearth of gas giants orbiting other stars. As for the number of moons orbiting these gas giants, who knows but judging from our own solar system (Jupiter has 33 satellites of which 4 are "large") it seems that one or more would be at the right distance from the planet to benefit (but not too much) from tidal energy. Just for an example imagine if Jupiter was in the habitable zone. All the Galilean satellites except Io would be excellent candidates for COMPLEX life (presumably underwater).
What wavelength radio waves penetrate underwater? Maybe SETI should be listening on those frequencies! :)
Re:Moons like Europa might be best place for Life (Score:4, Informative)
What wavelength radio waves penetrate underwater?
Well, basically none. Radio waves can travel some distance underwater but are quickly damped. For submarines very low frequencies of a few Hz have been used [wikipedia.org]. They can get a bit deeper, but you need very, very large antenna's for that.
Communications (Score:2)
FTL communications are most likely not possible with quantum entanglement but could it allow communication without signal degradation?
Sorry about the dumb question (Score:4)
Then there is the intense gravitational field of Jupiter, which will require a lot of fuel to get into Jovian and then Europan orbit. (It's equivalent to traveling amongst the inner planets!)
Can someone please explain why a strong gravitational field would require more fuel? Wouldn't a stronger pull require less fuel to get there since the Jovian gravity is pulling you there?
Re: Sorry about the dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
You have to remember that there's no friction in space. Going down a gravity well is easy, but stopping at the bottom requires energy. It's like a roller coaster heading down from a peak, with Jupiter at the bottom. As you approach Jupiter, it's gravity will speed you up (relative to Jupiter). Unless you put in energy to counteract that extra speed, you shoot past and fly right up the other side of the gravity well (up the next peak).
That said, the summary is wrong. Jupiter has lots of moons. You can do the opposite of a gravitational slingshot. Approach the moon from the forward direction, and thereby transfer some of your kinetic energy to the moon. Do it enough times and you're in Jupiter's orbit. That's pretty much how Galileo and Cassini were inserted into orbits around Jupiter and Saturn. You only need fuel or aerobraking to enter into orbit around planets without large moons, like Mars.
Only partially correct (Score:2)
Actually there are limits to what gravitational assists can do (unless one s waiting to spend a loooong time, using the "interplanetary highway" of chaotic gravitational influences). About a third of Galileo and half of Cassini's mass was propellent needed for the initial capture burn (and subsequent "retargeting burns" needed by the probes to, yes, take advantage of the gravitational assists).
In addition, neither probe tried to go into ORBIT around any of the moons in which case gravitational slingshots f
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a stronger pull require less fuel to get there since the Jovian gravity is pulling you there?
That's correct, if your goal is to impact Jupiter.
If your goal is to enter Jupiter's ORBIT however, the strong gravity pull means you have to spend a lot of fuel and increase your speed to match Jupiter's obital velocity, which is quite high.
I don't think this is correct. You need a lot of fuel to SLOW DOWN to enter Jovian orbit. You're traveling outbound in the Solar System, and you need to slow to go into orbit. And earth orbits way faster, as the orbital speed around the sun increases as you get closer. Just like satellites in earth orbit are faster at lower altitudes.
Not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that it says "NASA May Send Landers to Europa", not "SpaceX..." or "Private space exploration firms....".
Private industry can never replace the important need for publicly funded, government sponsored exploration of space.
Lewis and Clark were not funded by "private industry". They could not have been funded by private industry, and if they could have been, it would have made it a much less wonderful expedition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The potential to get some immediate return on investment was much higher, though. Once you discovered anything interesting (not even necessarily gold, there are plenty of prospective resources), it wasn't hard to entice some settlers to move there and start producing. The way it is with space right now, all research is going to be of no use economically for decades.
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Is anyone arguing with that? I'm a commercial space proponent and I work on NASA-funded planetary science missions.
The commercial space community states explicitly that NASA should be performing the "Lewis and Clark" job -- in fact thats the exact phrase we use. However, rides to orbit are no longer cutting edge technology, and have a proven opportunity for profit, and this is why we call for the government to stop insisting on its own launchers and use commercially available ones wherever possible, and to foster a market where it is possible to form one.
In planetary science we actively support this model, since Juno, MSL and GRAIL (the three recently launched missions) all launched on commercially purchased launch vehicles (though ULA is a bit of a monopoly so its not the healthiest commercial market).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, an entire wing of the Republican Party believes that private industry does everything better than government.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that it says "NASA May Send Landers to Europa", not "SpaceX..." or "Private space exploration firms....".
Private industry can never replace the important need for publicly funded, government sponsored exploration of space.
Lewis and Clark were not funded by "private industry". They could not have been funded by private industry, and if they could have been, it would have made it a much less wonderful expedition.
Yes, Lewis and Clark were funded by government, but they were private individuals, just as Space-X will be funded by government, but remain a private company. You could have also used Columbus as an example, but he too was government funded.
No one is saying that government should get out of space exploration. They are saying that government should play more of a management/executive role and less of a worker role. In other words, the government should say, "Space-X, I want to go to Jupiter" instead of "N
If only we could do both! (?) (Score:4, Insightful)
hardware aint the least of it (Score:5, Insightful)
the massive number of pointless military bases, oceans of bureaucracy, contractors that chage twice as much to do the same work as govt employees, contractors with corrupt links to govt leaders who decide who gets the money, pointless projects that spend billions and are cancelled halfway through planning stages.
the US military is essentially one gigantic social welfare program.
the only way to get a space program going is to spread the production out to various places, so that congress can suckle the fat teat of mother federal government and bring that bacon home to their districts.
A bolder plan (Score:2)
If I remember right, there was a much more ambitious plan to send two probes to Europa, wired together. One of them would stay on the surface and communicate with Earth, while the other would use the heat of it's reactor to melt through the ice, sending back electricity and gathered information to the surface module through the wire.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're trying to find out whether it is intelligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence is really a relative term, not a binary condition. While the level of intelligence of Europe is questionable, it's undeniably far more intelligent than America.
Re: (Score:2)
Ice shell on Europa is thought to be about 100 *km* thick, which would certainly block radio transmissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
100 feet? Current estimates are 19-25 km (12-16 miles). http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/europa/thickice/ [usra.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply include a high-res surface mapping element to the mission? Any probe needs to insert into Europa orbit first, why not design the mission to allow the landing sight to be selected after a detailed surface map is constructed?