NASA Gets $75 Million For Europa Mission

astroengine writes "It may not be a lander or an orbiter, but its something. Europa, one of Jupiter's largest moons, has been the focus of much scrutiny over its potential life-bearing qualities. It has an icy crust over a liquid water ocean and now salts have been detected on its surface, suggesting a cycling of nutrients from the surface to the interior. This only amplifies the hypothesis that Europa not only could support basic life, it could support complex life. But how can we find out? The proposed Europa Clipper received interest at NASA HQ last year as it would optimize the science while keeping the mission budget under $2 billion. It would be a spacecraft that will be in orbit around Jupiter, but make multiple flybys of Europa to assess the moon for its habitable qualities. Now, in a bill signed by President Obama and approved by lawmakers, $75 million has been allocated (for the remainder of this fiscal year) for a 'Jupiter Europa mission.' Could it represent the seed money for the Europa Clipper? We'll have to wait and see."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:$75 Million huh?

[GreenTom]

That cooperative threat reduction is basically helping the FSU keep track of and dismantle their nukes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction [wikipedia.org]

“Cool, except it should be Enceladus!”

[Ken_g6]

- Carolyn Porco

To get good information on Europa, you really need a lander. You might not even need to drill - organics may flow up from the ocean and get frozen in the crust. But a lander is necessary to get actual samples. In fact, if they send that Curiosity clone they're planning to Europa instead of Mars again, it might get much more interesting results!

Enceladus, on the other hand, is like Soviet Russia: Because of its geysers, samples go to you.

Re:$75 Million huh?

[hawguy]

Indeed. We're a long ways away from having the technical know-how to drill through several kilometers of ice (and lets' face it, we really have no idea how thick the ice "crust" may be), either by robot or even manned mission.

I don't think it's technical know-how so much as the cost to get the drill payload there. Scientists drilled through a kilometer of antarctic ice sheet to explore the lake beneath, so we have the know-how.

Re:Interesting cost comparison

[cusco]

More than the rest of the world. Since we finally retreated from Iraq our spending has gone down slightly and China's has risen we're now 'only' 41 percent. As a percentage of GDP we're only after Israel and the various Arab countries that we sell weapons to defend themselves from Israel. We could reduce our military spending by 80 percent and still be the #1 spender. Reduce it by 70 percent and we're still spending more than China and Russia combined. Keep in mind that doesn't count the (entirely unconstitutional) Black Budget, the alphabet soup of intel agencies, the free weapons we give away, or the mercenaries we are paying. Nor does it count things like the State Department paying Blackwater (or whatever its name is this week) to guard the US embassies worldwide, or the other mercs that are supposed to guard the consulates (like Benghazi) or oil and gas pipelines in Colombia.