Slashdot Mirror


Nuclear Powered Mission to Jovian Moons

Skyshadow writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has an article about NASA's new project, the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter). The probe is designed specifically to search for liquid water and signs of life on Europa, as well as making detailed observations of Callisto and Ganymede. Planned for a 2010 liftoff, this new probe makes all previous interplanetary probes look wussy: it'll be 300 feet long and powered by a next-gen fission reactor (as opposed to nuclear batteries). Sure beats blowing money circling the earth over and over again..."

10 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear Powered? by ericspinder · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The spacecraft would be the first in a series of robotic NASA probes that rely on uranium-fueled fission reactors to generate large amounts of electricity.
    Built in fission reactor, I can just think about what the enviromentalists will say, there was quite an uproar about the last mission which had nuclear material. You know, something about contaninating the earth if it blows up or is a little too low on the last lap around this planet

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  2. The just *can't* send this without a lander... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you're going to go to all the trouble to send a gigantic (length of a football field) probe all the way to Jupiter, I don't know how you could even consider doing so without sending a lander to get a up-close look at Europa. It'd be like Columbus sailing all the way to the new world and not getting off the ship...

    I wonder, specifically, what instruments this thing'll have that will require their own little nuke plant as opposed to batteries. Articles were a bit sketchy on the details...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:The just *can't* send this without a lander... by slittle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wasn't there some agreement/policy about not landing/crashing shit into Europa and possibly contaminating it with Earth bacteria (or nuclear fuel/waste as the case may be)?

      I think there was an article a couple months ago about a probe being redirected and crashed into Jupiter while it still had fuel to do so, rather than allow it's orbit to decay into Europa.

      (you can wait for the friendly neighbourhood karma-whore for links, I couldn't be stuffed :)

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  3. It gets worse... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if there is a failure of some sort around Europa and the probe ends up crashing on the planet?

    That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.

    Remember, recent NASA missions to the other planets have not all gone smoothly, so this is a very big concern.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:It gets worse... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What if there is a failure of some sort around Europa and the probe ends up crashing on the planet?

      That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.

      You do realize that if you were to stand unprotected on the surface of Europa today, you'd be killed within minutes by Jupiter's intense radiation belts. This reactor would just be a tiny drop in an ocean of ferocious radiation.

    2. Re:It gets worse... by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there"

      Doubtful, Europa's surface is continually bombarded by huge amounts of radiation accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field(created by the Io flux torus), it is almost certinaly quite sterile.

      Even assuming the radioactive reactor eventually gets subducted back down into the oceans of Europa, big deal, Europa's oceans are thought to be at least 2 times as voluminous as all of Earth's oceans combined. One relatively small nuclear reactor (small relative to a nuclear power plant reactor anyway) diluted in a volume of water that vast is not going to be an issue at all.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  4. Re:ISS a waste of money? by guacamolefoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hardly believe that a space station is a waste of money. There is much we still don't know about how humans react in 0 gravity and without an ozone layer. If we ever hope to have any type of manned exploration vehicles for our solar system we've got to "do our homework" first.

    Does "Mir" ring a bell with you at all?

    GF.

  5. Jaded by toxic666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When NASA and its contractors can pull together a big project that works, I'll believe it. Until then I doubt their proposals. Since Apollo and Skylab, we've had an expensive shuttle, several failed shuttle replacements (over ten billion dollars wasted trying) and spam-in-a-can ISS. Manned space missions have turned into grandiose, miserable failures.

    On the other hand, the small unmanned projects with limited and well-defined goals have had some success. The microprobe analyses from the little Mars rover were very interesting. Viking did good work. Probes have left the solar system and still work. And there is the propect that the next Mars landings will do some good science.

    This proposal just smells of another huge project to keep funding and billing rates high for the sake of government jobs and contractor profit. No concrete details and a promise to Fundamentally Change Life on Earth.

    Stick with KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

  6. Environmentalisim by Glendale2x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm saddened by the fact that this thing will probably come under some extreme environmental protest simply because it contains the words "nuclear" or "reactor".

    Not to mention that the reactor is probably sturdy enough to survive an liftoff abort destruct, or falling back to Earth. These things aren't engineered to be large radation hazards.

    Besides, nuclear material goes up on a lot of spacecraft and the world hasn't ended yet.

    --
    this is my sig
  7. This talk about Europa makes me wonder by use_compress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When scientists look for life out side the solar system, why don't they focus on moons of Jupiter like planets instead of finding Earth like planets. These Jovian planets could harbor moons that could sustain intelligent life. If you look at our solar system, two planets are good candidates for life (Earth and Mars) while three moons are good candidates (Callisto, Ganymede and Europa.)

    In the external solar systems we've found, most have had a Jupiter like planet orbiting near the star. This would expose it's planets to a similar amount of heat that the earth is exposed to.