Inside the Mission To Europa (arstechnica.com) 106
An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica details the political and engineering battles being waged to make it possible for NASA to land a probe on Jupiter's moon Europa. They have new information about mission plans; it sounds ambitious, to say the least. "First, the bad news. Adding a lander to the Clipper will require additional technical work and necessitate a launch delay until late 2023. At that time, the massive Space Launch System rocket NASA is developing could deliver it to Jupiter in 4.6 years. Once there, the lander would separate from the Clipper, parking in a low-radiation orbit.
The Clipper would then proceed to reconnoiter Europa, diving into the harsh radiation environment to observe the moon and then zipping back out into cleaner space to relay its data back to Earth. Over a three-year period, the Clipper would image 95 percent of the world at about 50 meters per pixel and three percent at a very high resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. With this data, scientists could find a suitable landing site. ...The JPL engineers have concluded the best way to deliver the lander to Europa's jagged surface is by way of a sky crane mechanism, like the one successfully used in the last stage of Curiosity's descent to the surface of Mars. With four steerable engines and an autonomous system to avoid hazards, the lander would be lowered to the moon's surface by an umbilical cord."
The Clipper would then proceed to reconnoiter Europa, diving into the harsh radiation environment to observe the moon and then zipping back out into cleaner space to relay its data back to Earth. Over a three-year period, the Clipper would image 95 percent of the world at about 50 meters per pixel and three percent at a very high resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. With this data, scientists could find a suitable landing site. ...The JPL engineers have concluded the best way to deliver the lander to Europa's jagged surface is by way of a sky crane mechanism, like the one successfully used in the last stage of Curiosity's descent to the surface of Mars. With four steerable engines and an autonomous system to avoid hazards, the lander would be lowered to the moon's surface by an umbilical cord."
uh oh (Score:2, Funny)
"all these worlds
are yours except
europa
attempt no
landing there
use them together
use them in peace"
Why not the imperial probe droid method (Score:2)
High impact shell that the probe emerges from in a nice safe crater.
You could even create the crater first if you wanted to keep things simple.
Re: (Score:2)
High impact shell that the probe emerges from in a nice safe crater.
You could even create the crater first if you wanted to keep things simple.
Gees. Lots of them. We don't have inertial dampeners.
Yes we do (Score:2)
Gees. Lots of them. We don't have inertial dampeners.
Sure we do, it's called a combination of padding and sufficiently robust construction to withstand high G forces.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that you're talking about decelerating from a *minimum* of 1432 m/s (3426 mph) on impact. That's *if* you've already slowed down into the lowest possible orbit skimming right over the surface. Hitting straight from a Europa-intercept trajectory from Earth would be vastly faster.
"Padding" is not going to cut it. These sorts of impacts convert their impactors to plasma.
But remember what HAL said (Score:2, Funny)
All these worlds are yours, except Europa
Attempt no landings there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Slashdot if someone reads TFA.
Re: (Score:1)
Now, all we need is how to fit a greased up Europa up your ass and the circle will be complete.
Why? (Score:2)
Why are we shooting for the moon instead of NEO?
We can't even get a man into space without Russia. Did we silently just lose the Cold War's Space Race?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Constellation killed itself, massive cost overruns were pushing it into the $150 - 230 Billion dollar range. SLS is bad, but nowhere near that bad coming in at the $40 - $80 Billion price range.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama resigned the US to defeat when he cancelled Project Constellation without extending the Space Shuttle program..
That's pretty clueless. Here's why. The Space Shuttle went nowhere after it demonstrated the conditional viability of reusable launch vehicles in the 80s. There's nothing that flew on the Shuttle that couldn't have been more cheaply flown on some other launch system. Further, the money spent on the Shuttle prevented the US from doing a lot of manned and unmanned work.
Constellation was no better for the same reasons. It's also worth noting that Constellation would not have survived competiton with the ULA launch vehicles (Atlas V and Delta IV), if the same cost and safety criteria had been applied to them as were applied to the ULA vehicles. However, the report that supposedly decided things in favor of the Constellation configurations (Shuttle-like stack), did so by deliberately understating risk of solid rocket motors, ignoring thrust oscillation of Ares I, and a few other deep problems of the configuration they chose. Then they came up with a completely bogus risk analysis to justify the choice they made.
We also ignore here that Bush did all the heavy lifting. By the time Obama came in, Shuttle and Constellation were both already walking dead.
SLS is a pale congressional substitute that is still being actively impeded and slow-walked by is cronies at NASA.
Crying shame really since we really need another dead end program to consume all that funding we could have used on real space projects. And it doesn't help that SLS is also underfunded by Congress, the only ones who claim to want it.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... The astronauts that repaired the Hubble might not have been able to do so on any other platform that was available at the time.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, there was actually a lot that flew on the Shuttle that couldn't have flown on any other launch vehicle - and we're not just talking people and a much more capable deployment system. Between 1988 and 2004 the Shuttle was the highest payload launch vehicle in the world. And the lower end of that range is questionable, as Energia never flew in its heavy lift configuration. In 2004 the Delta IV Heavy came online with slightly more payload capacity than the Shuttle, And really while it "came online" in 2004, its first successful launch wasn't until 2007. The Titan IVB came fairly close to the shuttle's nominal payload (which, BTW, could be increased in certain launch configurations) from 1997 to 2005, but wasn't as large. The same could be said about the Proton M from 1999 onwards and Ariane V from 2002. The Space Shuttle nonetheless had 15% more payload capacity and much more capable launch abilities than these systems (as well as being the only large payload return system in the world that ever operated for more than a few test flights). During the timeperiods these systems weren't available, the next closest systems to the Shuttle in terms of payload had only 3/4ths of its launch capacity.
Part of the reason they kept the Shuttle flying for so long (many had wanted to retire it much sooner) was that there were some ISS modules that could only be launched by the Shuttle.
There were a lot of things that nearly came to be that would have significantly boosted the Shuttle's payload even more, such as the ASRM. They had also started work on the five-segment booster, which would have vastly increased the Shuttle's payload (it's now part of SLS). If there had ever been demand, it had been determined that the payload bay could have been modified into a 30-74 seat passenger area, with a launch cost of 1,5 million USD per passenger (flights per passenger on Soyuz cost $20-40m)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a tendency towards revisionist history, here on Slashdot. Sometimes, for whatever reason, that appears to be aimed at NASA with an alarming frequency. I have no idea what the motivations are, nor do I understand the reasoning behind it. It's unfortunate, it really is. I can still think of justification for a space-bus, regardless of costs. And yes, yes I am aware of the risks to life. I'm not a coward, I don't freak out when someone loses a life. It happens and will continue to happen. If we let fea
Re: (Score:3)
It's unfortunate, it really is. I can still think of justification for a space-bus, regardless of costs.
But you can't disregard cost. Economics is key to understanding why we no longer launch the Space Shuttle or have a replacement reusable vehicle. In order for a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) to be competitive per launch with an expendable launch vehicle (ELV), the RLV needs to launch several dozen times a year.
With a small RLV, NASA probably could have afforded to maintain that high launch rate. But for the much larger Shuttle it just wasn't possible.
As to revisionist history, by 1990, it was clearl
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... The astronauts that repaired the Hubble might not have been able to do so on any other platform that was available at the time.
NASA could have launched two or three replacement space telescopes for the price of the Hubble repair missions. Even if your sole interest is in more scientific output, there were significant opportunity costs to using the Space Shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some numbers to back that up? I don't think we actually had anything capable, except for the shuttle, to put that much mass into orbit at that time so we're going to need to know the development costs and the likes factored into that. They also had to have a vehicle capable of doing walks from and supporting them for the duration of that journey. So, I'm going to need to see some numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, you mentioned mass. The HST weighed only 11 tonnes which is well in the range of more than half a dozen launch vehicles operating today as well as many more over the past thirty years. However, it's the physical dimensions which constrains the choice of launch vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, and now the craft to get the astronauts there and keep them sustained while doing the repairs? Then, this is a bit intangible so I'll let you provide any number you want on it - it's okay, how about the science that would be lost while we waited for a new HST-esque device to be built, tested, and placed into orbit instead of repairing the existing one? And any risks associated with it - such as potential losses due to the launch being the most dangerous part of any mission and where most losses are
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, and now the craft to get the astronauts there and keep them sustained while doing the repairs?
Don't bother. Launch more space telescopes instead.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
SpaceX's Dragon has already launched to orbit 8 times, including 6 full resupply missions to ISS, autonomously. It rides the Falcon-9, which has successfully reached orbit 18 times.
The manned Dragon capsule configuration (aka Dragon 2) is expected to do a demo flight in about a year. It was delayed by the accident investigation due to one faulty support spar (of which thousands had already flown) in May of this year. Falcon 9 is scheduled to return to flight in about a month, but it has a backlog of missions/payload before it can fly the Dragon 2 Demo flight, currently expected in the second half of 2016.
Yeah, we temporarily stumbled on manned space flight -- but we've done so before (e.g. after the two Shuttle disasters). It's not permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
Better still, the PR fallout from that accident doesn't begin to compare to those involving manned shuttles. Launches and reentries are generally the most dangerous part of a mission, but so long as nobody dies the risks can be handled from a purely financial perspective. And so long as you've budgeted for it a financial hit can is a lot easier to recover from than a media one.
political battles (Score:1)
Hello USA, can we please NOT derail a NASA discussion for once by not mention any presidents/parties/administrations ?
Your believe that it is relevant to the topic at hand is ridiculous. It is not. NASA is just a pawn in the political battlefield, easily sacrificed for other interests, like appeasing the constituency at one or another place.
Space projects require long term vision, and by the constant changing of the goal posts the last 20 or 30 years or so both parties have shown not to have it.
How much harder would it be (Score:3)
to land a sample extractor and launch it back to Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
and risk bringing back killer bacteria we have no immunity for? We don't want to win the Galactic Darwin Award (although certain groups seem to be trying).
Plus, sending enough fuel to escape the Jupiter system's gravity is not going to be trivial.
Re:How much harder would it be (Score:4, Insightful)
My way too many hours of Kerbal Space Program make me highly qualified (joke) to say that bringing something back is way harder than just putting stuff there. If you make a later stage twice as big, you need to make every stage leading up to it twice as big as well. Getting samples back up to orbit adds some nontrivially bigger engines and more fuel, even moreso when you think about landing that extra load, and making the orbiter come back to Earth may or may not need bigger engines but will certainly need more fuel. You could get rid of some of the lander's instrument packages and just process things back home, but that's risking an awful lot on a ton of new things that could go wrong... liftoff could fail, rendezvous could fail, anything could fail along the way home, and there's lots more radiation you have to eat.
On-site analysis is much cheaper and more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, you'll surely forget to bring a ladder or something and not realize it until you've hopped off to get samples, and then you have to send a whole new mission to rescue them.... invariably leaving your rescuers stranded as well....
Solution: more struts.
Are you listening, NASA? EUROPA CLIPPER NEEDS MORE STRUTS!
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: more struts.
So they can make a ladder out of the extra struts?
Re: (Score:2)
to land a sample extractor and launch it back to Earth?
Any craft that can extract a sample at Europa is a craft that can do Curiosity-grade microanalysis of the sample on site much more quickly and cost-effectively than it could do any Earth return.
Europa is nice and all... (Score:1, Funny)
...but when are we going to embark on a mission of true impact: the manned space mission to the sun!
Now, I know you have doubts, chief among them, "Isn't it really hot on the sun?" Fortunately, there is a simple solution: we will go at night.
Re: (Score:2)
...but when are we going to embark on a mission of true impact: the manned space mission to the sun!
Now, I know you have doubts, chief among them, "Isn't it really hot on the sun?" Fortunately, there is a simple solution: we will go at night.
Ah, the old ones truly are the best.
Master Sniffer? (Score:1)
Rather than a heavy multi-step risky crane landing system, why not spend the weight to juice up the in-orbit plume sniffer? If the moon pukes stuff toward the orbiter, then there is no need to land to sample it: sniff it while flying. Or, is there simply not enough material ejected to analyze well?
Can we send "Syrian refugees" there? (Score:1)
With any luck we can get "Syrian refugees" to confuse "Europa" with "Europe".
I'm betting Angela Merkel just changed her mind [telegraph.co.uk] about letting more "Syrian refugees" into Germany...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If only we had some sort of seasonally-appropriate story about middle-eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless.
2030: Endgame for Humans (Score:2)
Always a bright side (Score:4, Funny)
If we all die in 2030 it will sure be a relief we don't have to worry about the year 2038 [wikipedia.org] bug!
lack of imagination != endgame (Score:2)
And given that an elevated level of methane is not actually an existential threat (it just makes things a little warming, sea level a little higher, and interiors of continents a little drier), then not only is it not an existential threat, but th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I always like reading these predictions. Do you have a favorite escrow service? If so, would you be interested in making a wager - payout available on the first day of 2040? Make it worth my while and set it up. I'll accept any wager of 10,000 USD and higher. You can rescind your bet, at any time, with a 50% penalty - so long as the same option applies to me. I will need to vet the escrow service, prior to agreement, but I'm willing to do a 1:1 bet of $10,000 or more. It'll help you buy filtration devices f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you've the testicular fortitude for such. However, there's your chance to make some money and put your money where your mouth is. Instead, you go keyboard warrior and pretend to be tough. You're a joke, a caricature. If you're so certain then, well, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Any escrow service you want, so long as I can vet them to ensure they're insured and have a track record, and the money is yours for the taking. We can even agree on a lower percentage, say 10% of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are just playing at life.
Well, now you've made me snicker. I shall deign you with my attention once again... So, I'm playing at life? Hmm... Okay...
Yes, but I'm winning. You go down to the Navy base and earn enough money to make that wager yet? Your vulgarities are amusing but your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is, is telling. It must upset you, judging by your inability to control yourself - from threats to just vulgarities, that someone has called your bluff.
The reality is, however, that you're just wanting to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really this important to you to fuck with me?
Important? No. Fun? Yes. I'm retired and bored. It's fun to pull the strings and watch puppets dance. *snickers* You are, after all, the one who put the outlandish statement out there. I might as well get my mileage from it. You weren't doing anything better, where you? Me either. Contrary to popular opinion, retirement isn't all that it's cracked up to be - and I'm still stuck in Buffalo. So, well, you tossed me a softball and I figured I'd amuse at least one of us for a while.
Impress? God, no. The last th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You and I make a deal that if you're wrong and we obviously are in trouble then I can come and put a bullet in the back of your head for fighting people like me who were trying to do something before it's too late.
The thing you ignore here is that KGIII and I are also trying to do something before it's too late. We just disagree on what "do something" means and what the real threats are. IMHO, there are more important problems than panicking over nonexistent problems.
The point of debate is not to piss yourself in public like an unthinking, panicking animal. It's to try to convince others. You aren't doing that. For this, you need to show evidence not an endless stream of YouTube hyperbole that contributes no actua
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we solve this, this is certain dea
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me you have had the courtesy to consider what is at stake if you are wrong: extermination of the human race.
' Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org] and argument from ignorance fallacy is not a real argument. Your argument is not due courtesy.
Unless we solve this, this is certain death for me, you and our kids.
By what mechanism? There's not enough carbon available to cause a runaway Venus effect or indeed anything beyond an unpleasant warming of Earth. Even if we choose to assume that a lot of methane will be released in the coming centuries, so what? We still have a very nice place to live. And any real die off of humanity due to war or whatever immediately fixes the main problems.
Please stop sewing disinformation until you know the science for sure.
Science is evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb" [youtube.com]
[youtube.com]Doomsday 2020: Arctic Methane Melting Now
The Arctic Climate Threat No one is Talking About
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is NOT CO2, it is the Methane that is released from methane hydrates on the sea floor when the Arctic Sea ice melts.
Asserting that will happen is not the same as that happening. There are three obvious things which get ignored. First, methane levels just aren't that high now. Second, the additional pressure of 100 meters of water after the ending of the last glacial period plus the current run of increasing sea level. That stabilizes methane clathrates against significant rise in temperature. Third, consumption of methane in the environment. Just because it is assumed that methane has a significant lifespan in sea and ai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you simply think that the Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb is just a bunch of nonsense, that these reportsArctic Methane Emergency Group.
Yes, that is an accurate characterization of my opinion on the matter. To consolidate your other question [slashdot.org]
on the matter:
Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
Because there's big money in crisis management.
Really. That's your explanation? That's the be-all and end-all of this problem? Scientists are faking it to make money?
Again, yes. I don't think this has anything to do with actual science, but rather that hysteria and panic sells.
Re: (Score:2)
Methane has already been documented as flooding up from the Artic.
No, it hasn't. The rate of methane emissions have increased to some degree, but that's not the same as your alleged "flooding".
Re: (Score:2)
Methane meltdown: The Arctic timebomb that could cost us $60 Trillion [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, idiot, I don't need to prove this to you.
When 2030 comes, you just need to watch and learn.'
The proof will be coming and then you will feel like an idiot, which you are.
When the proof comes, then get back to me. Don't waste my time otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data presented here [youtube.com] is extremely compelling, as is this [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
Because there's big money in crisis management.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you looking for concrete scientific information on the evidence or are you just looking to be convinced?
Yes. Now put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you'd think the religion of climate would have learned by now to stop making grandiose predictions in such short time frames. by the year $YEAR, we'll have no more $X and all $Y will be gone!!! let alone predicting the mass extinction of humans. that's just silly. i've lived through far too many of these false prophecies, and have come to see their real purpose. which is to give control over your life to their cult, or be labeled a denier/skeptic/heretic.
and to question is forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
necessitate a launch delay until late 2023 (Score:2)
Nothing necessitates 8 year to launch schedule except a tight program budget stretched out over time. There are decent Jupiter launch windows every 2 years or so:
http://clowder.net/hop/railroa... [clowder.net]