NASA Launches Europa Clipper To Probe Jupiter's Icy Moon for Signs of Life 70
NASA's Europa Clipper mission lifted off successfully on Monday, marking the agency's first mission to Jupiter in over a decade. The $5.2 billion spacecraft aims to investigate whether Europa, Jupiter's fourth-largest moon, could harbor conditions suitable for life. A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launched from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 12:06 p.m. Eastern time, lifting the Europa Clipper spacecraft into orbit around Earth.
Europa Clipper, NASA's largest-ever interplanetary craft, weighs 12,500 pounds and boasts solar panels spanning 100 feet. Its nine scientific instruments will study Europa's surface and interior in unprecedented detail. After a 1.8 billion-mile journey, the spacecraft will reach Jupiter in April 2030. It will then conduct 49 flybys of Europa over four years, coming within 16 miles of the moon's surface.
Scientists believe Europa's subsurface ocean could contain twice as much water as Earth's oceans. The mission will measure ocean depth, analyze surface compounds, and map Europa's magnetic field to gather clues about its internal composition. Instruments will search for warm spots indicating thin ice, potential cryovolcanoes, and plumes of water vapor. The spacecraft will also attempt to identify carbon-based molecules that could serve as building blocks for life. "Europa is certainly the most likely place for life beyond Earth in our solar system," Robert Pappalardo, Europa Clipper project scientist, told the New York Times.
Europa Clipper, NASA's largest-ever interplanetary craft, weighs 12,500 pounds and boasts solar panels spanning 100 feet. Its nine scientific instruments will study Europa's surface and interior in unprecedented detail. After a 1.8 billion-mile journey, the spacecraft will reach Jupiter in April 2030. It will then conduct 49 flybys of Europa over four years, coming within 16 miles of the moon's surface.
Scientists believe Europa's subsurface ocean could contain twice as much water as Earth's oceans. The mission will measure ocean depth, analyze surface compounds, and map Europa's magnetic field to gather clues about its internal composition. Instruments will search for warm spots indicating thin ice, potential cryovolcanoes, and plumes of water vapor. The spacecraft will also attempt to identify carbon-based molecules that could serve as building blocks for life. "Europa is certainly the most likely place for life beyond Earth in our solar system," Robert Pappalardo, Europa Clipper project scientist, told the New York Times.
Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
Great to hear it's on its way! We've been speculating about the sub-ice oceans for a long time, now; time to learn how thick the ice shell is, and how deep under it we need to go to get to the sea below.
Re: (Score:3)
The 8-year-old boy inside me still finds rocket launches completely amazing and awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Real News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We really should send a smart craft out to Proxima Centauri B too,
Using any technology that actually exists today, it would take about 75,000 years arrive.
Re: (Score:1)
We're just taking a look. No one said anything about *landing*...
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks! I feel better now! I thought they'd send a probe on that moon surface. Hopefully, "just having a look" won't trigger any countermeasures but why take the risk anyway? /s
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Report [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that one.
Re: (Score:2)
What about one built with the technology that could exist after say, 15 years of an Apollo-level of investment, talent and management?
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of improvement in tech and capability is faster relative to the advantage of heading there right now. Assuming we are able to continue to exist as a civilized race, anything sent later would always arrive dramatically earlier. It is also a challenge to send any signal we could read from there. But why can't we spend 5% of worldwide efforts to this? We'd then 1000x the rate of progress.
I'd be happy with matching military spending for space exploration, currently hovering around the 2.2-2.3% mark. That would be a SIGNIFICANT boost to space exploration, and may give enough people enough hope to stop wanting to kill everybody else for a few moments. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Proxima Centauri B is far enough away that the theoretical hang-up is always, "But we'll probably invent something in that timespan that will pass anything we could launch today." While there are a lot of naysayers today who believe science has found the limits of all possible knowledge, I don't see any reason that wouldn't be true given the timespans that would be involved for current tech reaching Proxima Centauri.
Re: Hurray! (Score:2)
And now we've got one big enough to send a sub. In space.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt there could be very many people that could not be moved by seeing a 23 story building doing shit like that, if only from the downdraught and the shock waves.
Re: Hurray! (Score:1)
Re: Hurray! (Score:4, Informative)
Given that it's all ice, why don't we send an RTG "drilling and swimming" probe that could go beneath and tell us more about it's oceans? If we build it right it might serve us decades like Voyagers.
Because first we need to know how thick the ice is. Also how electrically conductive the ice is (electrical conductivity causes attenuation of radio signals).
But, with that said: yes, absolutely! https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citation... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's all ice, why don't we send an RTG "drilling and swimming" probe that could go beneath and tell us more about it's oceans? If we build it right it might serve us decades like Voyagers.
I've long thought that an RTG melting through the ice while spooling out an optical fiber to a surface communications array made a lot of sense, and so far I've never seen anyone come up with a convincing reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
One thing will be necessary for any lander hardware: it has to be able to be completely sterilized inside and out. That would probably entail heating it to a degree that would kill anything on it, which is still an issue for any electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
I've long thought that an RTG melting through the ice while spooling out an optical fiber to a surface communications array made a lot of sense, and so far I've never seen anyone come up with a convincing reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.
Ionizing radiation from Jupiter fries electronics relatively quickly. The Clipper mission handles this by positioning in a highly elliptical orbit that'll have it dive into the radiation belts and do high-speed flybys of Europa, before returning to the relative safety of the more distant parts of its orbit where it'll spend most of its mission time.
"How to harden a communications array so that it can spend a significant amount of time sitting on the surface of Europa" is well beyond my realm of expertise,
Re: (Score:2)
There's something really wrong with you.
Another win (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you even hear yourself?
You believe one of the dumbest people on the planet just launched a probe to Jupiter.
I don't like the guy's ethics at all but when his people say your people live in a non-reality world this is what they mean.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe he built the probe, the rocket, or planned the launch.
He has a piece of a paper that says he owns(a significant percentage of) the company that built the rocket, I'm sure you understand the difference.
Reportedly Starship was a project other executives set aside as "Musk Led" so he wouldn't interfere too much with the engineering on the other rockets, because he was reportedly a relentless micromanager with no useful skills who they needed to get out of the designers' hair. Don't know that t
Re:Another win (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody wants to call Elon Musk wonderful, wonderful, nothing but wonderful, or rotten, rotten, nothing but rotten.
People are more complex than that. It's ok to understand that he can be both good and bad in different spheres.
A lot of the credit for what SpaceX has done should go to the employees actually doing the work, the engineers and the technicians and the workers and the Chief Operating Officer, Gwynne Shotwell, who keeps it all from running off the rails. But, like it or not, yes, it's Elon Musk's company, and Musk was the driving force pushing it to develop the Falcon series of rockets, including the Falcon Heavy that launched Europa Clipper.
You can celebrate SpaceX's successes without having to like Elon Musk personally, or agree with his (rather simplistic) politics.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
He has a piece of a paper that says he owns(a significant percentage of) the company that built the rocket, I'm sure you understand the difference.
So, you mean it's just like Joe Biden who has a piece of paper saying he is POTUS? I'm sure you understand the difference.
Re:Another win (Score:5, Interesting)
You believe one of the dumbest people on the planet just launched a probe to Jupiter.
Elon Musk would be the lord and savior of every nerd on Slashdot if....
he was a liberal.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
He pretended to be a liberal for years before this latest "coming out as a far right psycho" thing, and I disliked him for years before that for things like silencing whistleblowers, union-busting, and the (rather expensive) PR campaign about making him out to be a hero for buying ownership stake of an existing electric car company.
I think a lot of people started seeing through the bullshit around the time of hyperloop/boring company, ideas that were just incredibly stupid in a way reusable rockets and elec
Re:Another win (Score:4, Informative)
He haven't much changed. He's still libertarian (little l). It's just the left is going warp speed leftward that his original position looks Far Right in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to get into a long or complex argument about another person's politics, as that is a tremendous waste of time, but no. He tried to describe himself as a socialist. It was obviously not true at the time, but he said it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Elon Musk's philosophy is grievance, driven by all the times he didn't get his way. He sees himself as the champion of others who have suffered similar indignity. It's no wonder that so many of his fans are a toxic collage of untreated personality disorders.
Re:Another win (Score:4, Informative)
I acknowledge that both parties have changed somewhat, as for example, there used to be pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but there's little doubt the current Republican party has moved much more to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left.
I disagree (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
if you're in the conservative party and pissing off your voters then you're not a conservative
So the party goes full Trump crazy.
And it's not the party that changed, it's the person that didn't go full Trump crazy?
You're only fooling yourself.
Neither party has changed all that much over the last several decades.
LOL.
the left is as left as they can get, where they've always been in modern times and the right is as far as they can get, where they've always been in modern times.
ROFLCOPTER
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Informative)
For one, many (even elected) democrats clearly espouse marxist beliefs.
Do you even know what Marxism is? Do you know any of the tenets of Marxism? Didn't think so.
I think even Kamala has used quotes or paraphrases from Marx.
Nope. Nothing in her platform nor her speeches aligns with Marxism, and no, none of the speeches quote Marx.
On the other hand, I can't think of any (elected) republicans clearly espousing far right beliefs (nazi etc).
OK, here's one example (of many). Trump says immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." This is a direct quote from Nazi propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He is what my kids would call a "Pick Me". He was always a douche, now he is an asshole. Nothing new here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, simply being liberal doesn't make him less of an unbearable lying thundercunt. Not everything is about politics, in fact most people don't give a shit about it.
I appreciate the work of SpaceX and honestly I'm disappointed to see Slashdotters diminish the work of the engineers and scientists working there by worshiping Elon Musk instead of the actual geniuses who did the work.
Re:Another win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully his annoyance (and successes) will lead other rich people to do the same and actually invest the fortunes they have in something useful, even if its just to overcompensate for something.
Who knows, some even may get inspired into doing a massive city sized O'Neill cylinder or two.
It's the biggest cylinder could make.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, then we just get Blue Origin.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I don't like him either, I fully support all space program stuff the company he purchased does. Mostly due to the hope that one day he may take that trip to mars, the moon or where ever and not come back.
Re: (Score:2)
It is remarkable how many people cannot handle the fact that Musk actually founded SpaceX, and did not, in fact, purchase it.
If you want to hate someone, go for it, but you should at least strive to base your assessments on objective reality...
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected, he did actually found this company, (unlike many of the others he flouts) so says Wikipedia. Still does not change that its success is despite the actions of its founder and not because of it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a win for NASA, not the taxi that NASA picked this time.
Re: (Score:1)
but... but... its a fully self driving taxi....
Phew (Score:5, Funny)
No landing attempts.
We're safe for now.
Very good (Score:2)
The hurricane was quite a worry
There is a problem with the MOSFETs (Score:2)
According to this article [nytimes.com] (non-paywalled) there is a serious potential problem with the MOSFETs that were used in the spacecraft. Some of them may not be able to withstand the radiation intensity in Jupiter's orbit.
Considering that they chose to launch, I hope whatever strategy the engineers decided to aplly works flawlessly.
Re:There is a problem with the MOSFETs (Score:5, Informative)
- They tested every MOSFET lot identified at risk (International Rectifier n-MOSFETs generation 5, 6 and 7), in application conditions. They actually asked every subcontractor for every instrument and equipment on the spacecraft to send them remaining parts in their inventory.
- Because of temperature dependent effects and time dependent effects (mainly concerning annealing of total ionizing dose damage), they could only test up to the mission baseline total ionizing dose constraint. They found the tested parts were to be suitable for the mission, however since they only had a limited number of parts, they do not know the real margin they have, especially if the temperature conditions differ significantly from the baseline.
- So in order to monitor the parts degradation during the actual flight, they designed this summer what they call a "canary box": an equipment with the most sensitive lots of MOSFET onboard, with telemetry to actually measure the main electrical parameters that will degrade with total ionizing dose (mainly the gate-to-source voltage threshold).
- If they measure a higher than expected degradation on the canary box, they will implement mitigation actions (such as shutting down some instruments to limit their total ionizing dose degradation or heating them up to increase annealing)
In conclusion, they feel pretty safe to me...
Re: (Score:1)
> to monitor the parts degradation during the actual flight, they designed this summer what they call a "canary box": an equipment with the most sensitive lots of MOSFET onboard...
Smart! It's good science to test such effects in general in actual space conditions. Pioneers 10 & 11 kept glitching due to Jupiter's radiation belt, but the experience gained made the Voyagers' more robust. Pioneer 11 also tested the debris level near the plane of the rings to make sure it wouldn't pelt future probes.
Correction (Score:2)
Correction: debris level near the plane of Saturn's rings
Re: (Score:2)
And they found that they could run a periodic in-situ annealing cycle that will mitigate the damage from radiation, turning a doom-and-gloom story into a rousing cheer for engineers!
No microscope? (Score:3)
Capturing ice from orbit, melting it, and looking at the water under a microscope seems like a pretty obvious experiment to run if you're looking for evidence of life. They do have a dust analyzer. But why no microscope?
Kudos to SLS! (Score:4, Funny)
My congratulations to SLS on pulling off this historic launch!
Oh, wait.
So kudos to Blue Origin!
uhm, no?
ok, it must be an old Boeing rocket.
Europa Report... (Score:1)