Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Galileo Amalthea Flyby Threatened

Posted by michael on from the save-a-buck-or-two dept.

vince writes "The Galileo spacecraft will fly by Jupiter's moon Amalthea on November 5th. This is the *only* close flyby of this moon Galileo will make, but (as currently planned) it will not return any images, in order to save a paltry $1m - $1.5m. Looks like a grassroots campaign is going to be necessary to save the flyby."

33 comments

  1. Why build ISS? by TheRedHorse · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why are we building the International Space Station? The only reasons I can see are political. NASA, although it was started for political reasons (JFK could have cared less about the moon, he just wanted to be the russians), is an agency based on the advancement of science. Scientific gain should be the determining factor of whether or not a project goes forward. The ISS appears to have no scientific gain for the US or the rest of the world.

    What new information about space and Earth can we learn through ISS that we haven't already learned on Mir and Skylab and continue to learn using new and old satellites?

    ISS is a huge project. For what purpose of discovery? None. The Space Shuttles are having problems, projects to create new vehicles to replace the space shuttles have been cancelled.

    In short, every year NASA is asked by Congress to do less and less science and more and more ISS. ISS costs tons of money but even though Congress insists that it be built they continue with huge cuts to NASA's budget every year.

    It's time to start giving NASA the funding they need and let them work on science not politics.

    1. Re:Why build ISS? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree!

      I am sick of that space station sucking up all the science money.

      It is the first black hole ever witnessed up close by humans. A money-hole that is.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Why build ISS? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 1

      Congress isn't behind the ISS; they almost killed it at one point. It was NASA (read Dan Goldin) and the executive branch (read Bill Clinton) that were to blame. Shuttle flights were getting old and hard to justify. NASA needed a mission, and they can't go to Mars -- and the ISS was just what the doctor ordered to keep the shuttle fleet alive and give NASA a 20-year manned spaceflight mission. The executive branch saw an opportunity to funnel money to Russia. Of course, most of the money wound up paying for expensive mansions around Star City, but, hey, you expect a little corruption in a cleptocracy. NASA hyped the project to the point where congressmen were convinced the ISS would cure prostate cancer (literally -- a statement like this is in the congressional record.) They lied about costs, fiddled with the accounting, and now the chickens have come home to roost. It's a shame, because NASA does good science (in their umanned program), but Congress is not to blame.

    3. Re:Why build ISS? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the bold tag; meant to hit [p] instead. I'll preview next time.

  2. Read the article by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Last time it tried to take pictures it shut down in failsafe, now there is a high probability it will do so again, in which case 1.5mil would be wasted, which NASA can't really afford.

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    1. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you're right, it's better not to try. What good did trying ever do for anybody?

    2. Re:Read the article by Angry+Toad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1.5 million keeps the full science team on salary for a year, plus buys all of the associated frills. Seems pretty sad to me - they could get decent shots of Amalthea with a few hours of work by the techs who actually do the trajectory and camera pointing work, but that doesn't fall within established protocols.

      Feh. If NASA falls prey to that kind of pointy-headed desk-jockey thinking, then I suspect the glory days may really be behind them.

  3. Paltry? by rw2 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm starting a company Spamassassin to sell a webmail service, like hotmail, but with spam filtering done on our servers.

    A paltry $1m would go a hell of a long way, so if you're stuck with an over-burdened bank account, drop me a line. Until then, let's realize how much money a million really is.

    It's this kind of attitude that has our national budget back in the red.

    1. Re:Paltry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The probe cost over a billion to build and launch. Here we're talking maybe 1/1000 of that. All that money to build the thing, and now they don't want to shell out a little money to use it for what it was designed to do. And don't get me started on the price tags on ISS, shuttle flights, etc. -- it's outrageous.

    2. Re:Paltry? by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it ironic that you're plugging your anti-spam company in an off-topic post.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Paltry? by rw2 · · Score: 2

      The parent of this is Insightful? That's pretty funny as all he does is launch an adhominem attack.

      Dude, I mentioned my company (which if you check the website isn't even fsck'ing open for business yet) to establish "context". You'll probably learn about it when you get into high school. (see, adhominems are fun!).

      My original comment may not have been interesting, but it certainly was *not* offtopic. The article was about money for christs sake.

  4. Small moons are interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see why the Galileo team only focused on the main 4 moons of Jupiter. I understand that the probe needs to fly near something somewhat massive to alter the trajectory for the next flyby, but they've already visited each 7 times. They should have alternated between a small moon and a large moon.

    1. Re:Small moons are interesting by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, small moons aren't interesting. Well, not in the same way and to the same degree as the Galilean moons. The Galilean moons are large enough to be spherical and to show geological processes and to hold on to trace atmospheres. That means there is probably much more to study with them than with the smaller moons, which have little geology aside from impact cratering. This is not meant to be a value judgement, merely an unfortunate pragmatic fact.

      Mission planners also undoubted considered some basic orbital facts, here. The small moons of Jupiter are all either quite a bit outside the Gailean orbits or within Io's orbit. You might think you could sneak visits to the former as the probe swings out from or in to Jupiter on its very elliptical orbit. But ALL of the outer moons have signficant inclinations. The odds of meeting one of them near the equator of Jupiter is slight, given the number of coincidences you'd need. As for the inner moons (Amalthea, Phoebe, Adrestea and Metis), they're all interior to Io. This is actually very bad for Galileo. You'll recall that getting in as close to Jupiter as Io has causes problems, thanks to the magnetosphereic plasma. The farther in you go, the worse it gets. They're only doing this now because Galileo is well past its life expectency and beginning to fail anyway.

  5. Re:Why build ISS? (long) by Dastardly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are we building the International Space Station?

    Good question. Personally, I think all current official justifications of the space program are pretty weak. The only long term goal of the space program is should be very simple. The eventual self-sufficient colonization of the rest of the solar system, and subsequently extra-solar planets.

    The current justification for the space station is weak, it should be called what it is and the majority of the work should be focused on the end goal. Any additional science is gravy. The space station is a stepping stone, the next step is the moon. Which requires thorough robotic exploration in order to locate materials suitable for use in developing human habitation (food, water), spacecraft fuel, and building material.

    From the moon you build and launch additional spacecraft for shuttling between the space station and the moon. You also build the craft for exploring, exploiting, and eventually colonizing other locations in the solar system.

    Once we can self sufficiently colonize locations in this solar system, the next (and much more difficult) step is to find other solar systems to colonize. The first job will be finding systems with the raw materials for human colonization. Then, barring discovery of FTL, we will need to turn a large asteroid, or conglomeration of asteroids (i.e. icy, rocky, metallic) into a colonyship with a nuclear(fission or fusion) energy source, machines and equipment, and enough people to maintain a population for the lifetimes it will take to get to another system, and begin exploiting the resources available to do the same things we did in our solar system.

    Can this happen soon? Not a chance, it is the project of multiple lifetimes. But, each step is simply an evolution of what was done before, and is definitely possible. The key to everything is the moon, it is a nearby source of raw materials with low gravity, launching stuff form the moon is a hell of a lot easier than from earth. Eventually, the only thing you would want launched from earth are people and light stuff.

    Dastardly

  6. but... aren't the money allready lost then? by FreakCERS · · Score: 1

    as previously described, small moons ARE (or at least can be) interesting...
    just considering the cost of a new mission to investigate the moon, and perhaps others, I'm having trouble figuring out the benifit of delaying this research...
    don't get me wrong.. 1 mill IS a lot of money to loose, but if you aren't going to use the damn spacecraft, aren't the money allready lost?

  7. Why does it cost this much? by berck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could someone please explain why it costs to 1.5mil for a satelite that's there already to send back pictures? This just isn't making sense to me... All they have to do is TELL it to take them, and I'm not sure how telling it to do so costs 1.5mil? I'm not doubting the accuracy of this, I would just really like to know WHY it costs so much...

    1. Re:Why does it cost this much? by freon12 · · Score: 1

      Short answer: Salaries.

      It costs nothing to get and transfer the pics, because the technology is already paid for. But it costs a lot to pay the highly skilled people to aim the cam, process the images, etc.

      Moreover, it costs a lot to pay the managers of the highly skilled people. :)

      If you (have) work(ed) in the high tech industry, you probably already know about this.

      Cheers!

      --
      "Do it the hard way first, so you can appreciate the easy way later."
    2. Re:Why does it cost this much? by Observer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Read the article:
      That $1 million-plus bill for Amalthea imaging is based on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory maintaining Galileo's 12-member science team and data distribution system for another year (during much of which they would be idle).

      But this, strictly speaking, is not required. ....
      The article goes on to summarise the possibilities for doing a "last fling" flyby that could cover more than just the small moon, for a cost of perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars. It would be a gamble on avoiding another radiation-triggered shutdown, but if the article is accurate, that's a possibility for the planned data collection anyway on this orbit.

      Seems a pity not to rereview squeezing as much as possible out of what may well be this impressive craft's last pass through the inner reaches of the Jovian system. On the other hand, just a rereview would probably eat up another $1M :(

  8. Pity by virve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One can't help thinking that it is a great pity that the question of one million dollars is going to block a 'photo opportunity' that might be otherwise be decades off.

    It is true that Amalthea probably is a quite boring, small rock and there isn't much of scientific interest there but if we don't take the chance and get the data while we have a space probe out there then we mis opportunity to be surprised. Science involves a fair amount of "stamp collection" or "botany". A set of photos from Amalthea would fit in nicely here.

    --
    virve

  9. Re:Why build ISS? (long) by cheezehead · · Score: 1

    That's all very interesting, and I mostly agree with it.

    However, there is one thing about a space station that everyone seems to be missing, and that is the absence of gravity. Studying physical, chemical and biological processes in such an environment has a tremendous potential payback, both scientifically and economically (e.g., producing extremely pure crystals, pharmaceutical applications, etc.)

    Also, a space station allows us to study the effects of zero gravity on the human body. Could be useful when using the space station as a stepping stone.

    Again, I basically agree with what you are saying. However, consider that all these ambitious colonization plans are going to be much more expensive than the ISS. A space station that (hopefully) is a huge success could pave the way (politically and in terms of budget allocation) for greater things.

    --

    MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

  10. Zero gravity? Feh. by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 1
    Actually, the absence of gravity isn't really what it's cracked up to be. The vibrations aboard the ISS are much more severe than the specs, messing up the microgravity environment.

    Even if you get beyond that problem, it's quite controversial whether the crystal-growth program or biological studies will yield any significant benefits, especially if you look at the cost/benefit ratio.

    It *is* useful for learning about the effects of low gravity on the human body, but what can it do that Mir couldn't?

  11. Re:Why build ISS? (long) by Dastardly · · Score: 1

    However, there is one thing about a space station that everyone seems to be missing, and that is the absence of gravity. Studying physical, chemical and biological processes in such an environment has a tremendous potential payback, both scientifically and economically (e.g., producing extremely pure crystals, pharmaceutical applications, etc.)

    That was the gravy I mentioned.

    Also, a space station allows us to study the effects of zero gravity on the human body. Could be useful when using the space station as a stepping stone.

    Yes, Bingo. But, let's call it what it is instead of coming up with other stupid justifications.

    However, consider that all these ambitious colonization plans are going to be much more expensive than the ISS. A space station that (hopefully) is a huge success could pave the way (politically and in terms of budget allocation) for greater things.

    Again, correct. But, call it what it is, one step in the process of putting people on other planets permanently. We need to quit trying to come up with other justifications. Oh, and cost is kind of hard to quantify since it gets spread out over a lot of years. On top of that, one theme you missed was self-sufficiency, and hopefully extra productivity beyond that, in order to change the net movement of resources from Earth to Space into Space to Earth. And, also the cost will be reduced by reducing the amount of stuff that has to be hauled out of earths gravity by building large things using material from places with less gravity.

    Dastardly

  12. Good thing, too! by rholland356 · · Score: 1

    Those Amaltheans are really ugly, so not taking photos of that moon will spare the camera.

    I *hate* visiting that place...

    RH

  13. Why not re-use Galileo? (maybe off-topic) by doughmein_dot_net · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The whole fly-by thing got me pondering Galileo's planned fate, and how NASA has planned to nudge it into Jupiter when they have closed its planned mission. As I thought about this more, I began to realize just how valuable Galileo might be in the future.

    Imagine a time, possibly in the near future, when humanity is able to overcome our petty differences, savage warfare, and all that which keeps us from truly growing as a species. When you're done laughing, take a minute to clean the Dr. Pepper off your monitor, and think about what would happen if, in a state of relative world peace, humanity embarked upon a mission to colonize our solar system and beyond.

    We already know that we live on one of the best sources of heavy metals in our region of the solar system, at least until mining operations on Luna (or possibly Mercury) can be established. We've already sent out many satellites to explore the inner and outer solar system, with sizes varying from a small car to a large school bus. Think about the amount of heavy and precious metals used for the construction of these satellites. Think about how much gold, silver, silicon, iron, and other rare metals were bought by our tax dollars and shot into space. (Don't be outraged just yet -- the satellites served their intended purpose, and gave us good science and some really cool pictures.)

    Now, let's list some of the most likely places where humanity can colonize and expand:

    • Luna, close to Earth but probably poor in volatiles or metals
    • Mars, a bit farther, but with unknown volatiles or surface metals
    • Ganymede and Callisto, farther away but probably have enough volatiles and water ice to sustain a colony
    • Titan, even farther and with extreme atmospheric conditions

    As the list goes on, none of these places are known to have any serious deposits of heavy or rare metals. Given that most of the colonists' heavy and rare metals would probably have to come from Earth (and be pushed out of our deep gravity well at enormous expense) and be carried to their eventual destination, shouldn't we at least try to re-use an existing object of heavy and rare metals in the area? Wouldn't it make sense to save Galileo for this future colonization time, with the intent that we humans could scavenge it for its valuable parts and heavy metals?

    Perhaps the imaging devices and optics, though old, could still work and serve as a near-field camera or for some other purpose. The computer circuits could be saved for their silicon, gold, and other elements. The nuclear power plant would probably not be too radioactive by the time we got to it, so there's some nice lead and uranium/plutonium for the taking. Even the frame of the spacecraft could be melted down and reformed into something useful. I'm sure there isn't much refined steel, titanium or aluminum just floating around, waiting to be picked up by us humans. Sure, we could start mining the asteroids, but that'd take time and lots of work.

    Just because Galileo has surpassed its original mission lifetime and survived for additional scientific purposes doesn't mean that we should waste it completely by dropping it into Jupiter. The giant planet already has 317 Earth-masses, and it really doesn't need any more. Plus, if we drop anything in there, there isn't any way we are going to get it back.

    My suggestion is to put Galileo into a comfortable parking orbit around Ganymede or Callisto, and maybe let it continue to operate, snap a few random pictures once in a while, and report on the Jovian system. Then, after it stops functioning and we can get out there to colonize, we'll have a nice starting point towards a space station, or raw materials to help build a Jovian moon colony.

    Thoughts?

    --
    Super ninja monkeys will one day rule the world!
    1. Re:Why not re-use Galileo? (maybe off-topic) by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because there are no comfortable parking orbits in the Jovian system. There are too many bodies to provide a system we can solve over longer-term. (For a Jovian orbit, that means say a few hundred orbits. Each orbits is of order days, so we're talking a few years.) Beyond any short term, the perturbations to the orbit add up and thanks to the chaotic nature of the orbits, we lose the ability to predict where Galileo will be. Thanks to an almost non-existant fuel supply, nothing can be done to prevent this.

      So we lose control of the orbit, so what? So what is that they don't want it to crash into a moon like Europa. While the RTG is relatively safe, it's still warm and would probably work its way down through the ice, saith NASA analysts. (Even if it doesn't, there is a fair chance that the anything on the surface will eventually end up inside the moon.) Once inside, there is the risk of contaminating the moon with not only the radioactive plutonium but also any terrestrial microorganisms that might be left on Galileo. (The spacecraft was not cleaned to the levels that would be required of a lander.) Either way, that runs the risk of contaiminating the whole moon.

      Is the risk small? Yes. But the last thing anyone wants is to ruin any extraterrestrial ecosystems for study. Once you contaminate them, all subsequent research is going to be of questionable value.

      There is also the risk that Galileo could be ejcted from the system. This has the potential to be bad, as well, as it could (very long term, admittedly) come back and smack Earth. I know, low probability. I was incredulous when I heard the NASA folks worry about that, but it is a risk. And so that's why they're not getting it out of Jupiter orbit, in fact.

      Ultimately, I suspect that everyone at NASA would dearly love to save poor Galileo. It's been a trooper and deserves to be enshrined in the Smithsonian. (No offense, but given the choice between that and a few tons of scrap metal and outdate technology, I'd pray they'd bring it home.) But the risks, small though they are, are deemed too great.

  14. Read the Article yourself! by OctaneZ · · Score: 2
    And I Quote from the Article:
    That $1 million-plus bill for Amalthea imaging is based on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory maintaining Galileo's 12-member science team and data distribution system for another year (during much of which they would be idle).

    But this, strictly speaking, is not required. The science team does not have to be on hand, and distribution and analysis of the photos could easily be delayed, with the photos simply being stored for later distribution to scientists.
    So it does NOT in fact cost THAT much to take the pictures, while it does not mention the ACTUAL cost, we are lead to beleive they are considerably lower than the cost of maintaining the entire team for another year. I also have to agree with the article and wonder why they would need to be "live" for the year, when it seems this could be laid out, at least in gross detail now, and then fogotten until a week or two before. Correct me if I am wrong, as I have only ever used satellites in earth orbit with multiple-daily dumps.