Slashdot Mirror


Fly Me To Which Moon?

Hugh Pickens writes "NASA and the European Space Agency are expected later this week to settle an ongoing debate on whether to send a robotic mission to Jupiter's moon Europa or Saturn's moon Titan. Both are difficult places to get to — a mission to either would cost several billion dollars/euros to build and execute — and both have become alluring targets in the quest to learn whether Earth alone supports life. On the one hand, Europa is believed to have liquid oceans beneath its frozen crust which (on Earth at least) are a source of life-supporting chemistry. Scientists would like to scan Europa's surface for bits of material that may have seeped up from beneath the ice. 'Imagine if there were microbes entrained in material that has exuded onto the surface of Europa and they've been sitting there for maybe three million years,' says planetary scientist Dr. Brad Dalton. On the other hand, Titan has two enticing features in the search for life: liquids on the surface, and a thick atmosphere that can be used to slow down a spacecraft and help put it into orbit. Titan's surface water is locked into the crust as ice, but scientists suspect there may be a subsurface ocean where water mingles with ammonia. The mission will not get to the launch pad before 2020. 'It's unfortunate that there has to be a decision,' says NASA/JPL astrobiologist Dr. Kevin Hand. 'It's important to go to both. They are both such amazing and tantalizing worlds in terms of finding life.'"

183 comments

  1. We already know the outcome... by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Funny

    All these worlds are belong to you. Except Europa. Attempt no landings there, every 'ZIG'!!

    1. Re:We already know the outcome... by volcanopele · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except...the Europa mission doesn't have a lander. It only has two orbiters, one would go to Europa and the other would go to Ganymede.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    2. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      To Ganymede and Titan, yes sir, I've been around...

    3. Re:We already know the outcome... by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      fly me to the moon
      let me play among the stars
      let me see what spring is like
      on jupiter and mars

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    4. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to Titan
      I've been to Juno
      How many things that go in jars d'you know?

    5. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, I know it's lame but.... that's no moon.

      /duck!

    6. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there ain't no place, in the whole of space, like that good ol' toddlin' town.

    7. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't sing you know.

    8. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In space nobody can hear you sing.

    9. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? So you did not only spoil a joke and actually RTFA, but you also did some research and/or posses some actual knowledge relevant to the topic at hand? Nice try blending in, killjoy.

    10. Re:We already know the outcome... by canonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's too bad Europa's atmosphere is so tenuous, or we could all hear the WHOOSH.

    11. Re:We already know the outcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I interest anyone in a waffle?

  2. access to space by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we had worked on cheaper access to space first, we could have both.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:access to space by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Expecting government contractors to do anything more than provide the bare minimum to get the next contract is foolish.

      The whole point of Apollo was that nothing fundamentally *new* was required. "All" that was needed was to put the existing technology together. The same cannot be said of RLVs.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:access to space by Jurily · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If we had worked on cheaper access to space first, we could have both.

      Agreed. we should have a space station at L1 before we do any more exploring.

    3. Re:access to space by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Informative

      L1, L2, and L3 are all semi-unstable points. You'd be better off in L4 or L5.

      And solar wind at L1 is a bitch. At least the magnetosphere would protect some at L2.

      --
    4. Re:access to space by Jurily · · Score: 3, Interesting

      L1, L2, and L3 are all semi-unstable points. You'd be better off in L4 or L5.

      And solar wind at L1 is a bitch. At least the magnetosphere would protect some at L2.

      I have to agree with that. It does not lessen my point about having a space station first, then expanding further, though.

    5. Re:access to space by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately getting to L4 or L5 is a bit of a bitch. NASA is having problems getting people back to the the moon, L4 and L5 are several times further.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    6. Re:access to space by weighn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      cheaper is one thing - getting space progs on a higher budgetary priority is at least as good.

      we could have worked out a single mission visiting both by now if we didn't worry about crud like cold wars, wars on drugs/terror, etc ... oh well

      BTW - i almost fell for the sig, nice one!

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    7. Re:access to space by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Expecting government contractors to do anything more than provide the bare minimum to get the next contract is foolish.

      The whole point of Apollo was that nothing fundamentally *new* was required. "All" that was needed was to put the existing technology together. The same cannot be said of RLVs.

      Agree with the first pont, but the second - you're kidding, right?

      The entire point of the Apollo programs was to funnel huge amounts of cash into the public/private sector so the USA could 'catch up' with the Sovs. (If they were really 'in the lead' could be debated endlessly).

      Huge advances were required in many fields, including materials science, rocket motor design and construction, computers for simulation and guidance...

      As often, Wikipedia says it better than I could:

      "The program spurred advances in many areas of technology peripheral to rocketry and manned spaceflight. These include major contributions in the fields of avionics, telecommunications, and computers. The program sparked interest in many fields of engineering, including pioneering work using statistical methods to study the reliability of complex systems made from component parts. The physical facilities and machines which were necessary components of the manned spaceflight program remain as landmarks of civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering..."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

    8. Re:access to space by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a different between engineering and research.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:access to space by OolimPhon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately getting to L4 or L5 is a bit of a bitch. NASA is having problems getting people back to the the moon, L4 and L5 are several times further.

      Shame. I would like to see NASA et al. boost the ISS out to L4 or L5 when it's finished with, instead of splashing it and losing the whole thing.
       
      At least we would have an ad hoc laboratory to see how our existing equipment works beyond the magnetosphere, plus somewhere to go that's easier than the Moon or Mars but may be more useful than low earth orbit.

    10. Re:access to space by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem with the stable points is that all sorts of debris and dust collect there?

      And sorry, could not resist:

      Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
                      Where the three-body problem is solved,
                      Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
                      And the cold virus never evolved.
      CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange,
                      Where the space debris always collects,
                      We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
                      Solar power and zero-gee sex.

                                      --Home on Lagrange (The L5 Song)
                                                    © 1978 by William S. Higgins and Barry D. Gehm

    11. Re:access to space by In+hydraulis · · Score: 1

      "Several times further"?

      L4 & L5 are situated 60 degrees ahead and behind the Earth in its orbit (subtended at the Sun), i.e. each of those points forms an equilateral triangle with the Earth and Sun at the other two vertices.

      They are 150 million kilometres away. Even L1&2 are several times the distance of the Moon.

    12. Re:access to space by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately getting to L4 or L5 is a bit of a bitch. NASA is having problems getting people back to the the moon, L4 and L5 are several times further.

      How did this get marked insightful? For all that it is 1/6 that of earth, the moon has a gravity well. Traveling through space is cheap; all you need is supplies for any actual crew. Landing and taking off again, that's hard. To be fair, stopping ain't necessarily easy either. And let's face it, NASA can't actually get to the ISS right now (they should scrub every shuttle launch, because the vehicle is so heavily flawed by design. how many do we have to blow up to prove the point?)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L1 is cool but its ghetto there.

    14. Re:access to space by toiletbowl · · Score: 1

      -1 offtopic... I did fall for it. It wasn't until I had already clicked that I noticed it was to logout :-(

    15. Re:access to space by dmatos · · Score: 1

      How does having a space station at one of the Lagrange points make access to space cheaper? Unless we can find some method other than chemical propellents to get stuff into orbit, the access cost is pretty much unchanged.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    16. Re:access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain how going from point A to point B, stopping, then resuming the journey to point C would be cheaper than going from point A directly to point C.

    17. Re:access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How did this get marked insightful

      I kind of understand your reaction, it may have had the right idea but with serious errors:
      - Confusing L1 and L3 (the Earth-Moon L1 is a shorter distance away than the Moon).
      - Ignoring that Earth-Moon L2 isn't all that much worse than L1 in terms of delta-v and time if one utilizes the gravity dimple of the Moon.
      - Confusing Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon Lagrange points (these are two different sets of Lagrange points). While it's true that the Earth-Sun Lagrange points 4 and 5 are 60 degrees ahead and behind of Earth in Earth's orbit around the Sun as measured from the Sun the Earth-Moon Lagrange points 4 and 5 are 60 degrees ahead and behind the Moon in the Moon's orbit around Earth as measured from Earth. I.e. exactly the same distance away as the Moon...

      There's far more to the debate though and there's just a little bit of dust at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points 4 and 5, nothing else at all. A possible location for when one can build huge structures there but not until then.

    18. Re:access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      L1 and L2 are on the shoulders... L3 is the joystick click... wtf is L4 and L5, I want your controller mister.

    19. Re:access to space by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately getting to L4 or L5 is a bit of a bitch. NASA is having problems getting people back to the the moon, L4 and L5 are several times further.

      Umm, no. L4 and L5 are in the same orbit as the moon, and therefore at the same distance.

      Not that distance is a significant factor, mind you. DeltaV requirements are the limiting factors on our ability to go places in space. DeltaV requirement to put something on the moon are about 5600 m/s, to get something to L4/5 about 4000 m/s.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:access to space by KevinKnSC · · Score: 2, Informative

      We're talking about Lagrange points relative to the Earth and Moon, not the Earth and Sun. As such, all of them are more or less the same distance as the moon.

    21. Re:access to space by Tybalt_Capulet · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that's the smart thing to do. Nasa's budget is decided by Congress.
      Name one smart thing they've done in 30 years.

      --
      Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
    22. Re:access to space by In+hydraulis · · Score: 1

      Well, okay...

      But in that case L4 & L5 are just as far as the Moon - equilateral triangle still holds. They're still not several times further.

      Yeah yeah, a nitpick, I know.

    23. Re:access to space by a1x2 · · Score: 1

      L4 and L5 of the Earth-Sun system are indeed distant targets. L4 and L5 of the Earth-Moon system are no more far than the Moon itself.

    24. Re:access to space by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Completely forgot about those ones.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    25. Re:access to space by rhfixer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's true, but there's feedback also. Engineering calls for innovation and that may require research. A virtuous cycle.

      --
      Hi.
    26. Re:access to space by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      so the USA could 'catch up' with the Sovs. (If they were really 'in the lead' could be debated endlessly).

      Lets see, they were the first to put an object in orbit, the first to follow that with an animal, a man, a woman, a 'permanent' space station.
      They were the first on the moon and on mars (robots).

      If you want to debate who was in advance, you'll have to pull a Clinton and debate the meaning of "is", IMO.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    27. Re:access to space by ATMD · · Score: 1

      Scientists discover new principles.
      Engineers apply old principles in new ways.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    28. Re:access to space by hachete · · Score: 1

      I'd rather trust tried and trusted technology to do anything engineering. Latest Apache server? Uh, no thanks. I'd rather stick to dear old 1.3.*. I'd prefer windows 3.1 to Vista if I was going to stick my arse in the deep, deep cold of space. The 286 chipset to whatever whizz-bangery that powers the latest netbook. Especially if I was riding into the sweet unknown, I'd want my technology tried trusted, fully debugged. I don't want any blue-screens as I try and land in the zero-warmth of space.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    29. Re:access to space by warrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the big accomplishment of the US is doing all of that while keeping the rest of the economy going, ie food on the table. The USSR channeled everything into space/military R&D for short term gain but in the end we all know how that worked out. The USSR was kind of like the morons I see sprinting at the beginning of a 10k run that then get passed up somewhere in the first couple miles and eventually finish walking.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    30. Re:access to space by turgid · · Score: 1

      Shame. I would like to see NASA et al. boost the ISS out to L4 or L5 when it's finished with, instead of splashing it and losing the whole thing.

      That would be cool, but I can't help but think that the ISS is a bit too "floppy" for that. Would it end up wobbling itself to pieces if it was boosted away with a substantial rocket?

    31. Re:access to space by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The Russians put sweet fuck all into their space program. They put about as much into their military as the US did. The difference is that they didn't have a functioning economy. They did all this shit in a command economy. That's like fighting a title bout with your hands tied behind your back.. impressive if you can hold your own, but no-one would call it sensible.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    32. Re:access to space by djp928 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly what use would a Space Station at any of the Lagrange points be for missions to Jupiter or Saturn?

    33. Re:access to space by djp928 · · Score: 1

      This depends on which set of Lagrange points you're talking about. The Earth-Moon L4 and L5 points are indeed in the same orbit as the moon. The Sun-Earth L4 and L5 points, which I thought the original poster was talking about, are considerably farther away than the moon.

    34. Re:access to space by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Haha, that's awesome. Sweet Jesus is that an actual song?

    35. Re:access to space by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quite true.

      The Sun-Earth Lagrange points are, however, pretty much completely worthless, and always will be. By the time we can make convenient use of them, we'd be better served by using the Sun-Jupiter Lagrange points.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:access to space by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      in the end we all know how that worked out. The USSR was kind of like the morons I see sprinting at the beginning of a 10k run that then get passed up somewhere in the first couple miles and eventually finish walking.

      It's more like olympic skating. The russians were Nancy Kerrigan and then Tonya Harding sent the CIA to kneecap their pipelines.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    37. Re:access to space by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      It is sung to the tune of "home on the range".
      But so far I have been unable to find an actual performance of the song, just the lyrics (there are some more verses)

    38. Re:access to space by Skyth · · Score: 1

      Government contractors? Do you even realize what Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman and other companies like this accomplished? I have to assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be insinuating they only want to do the bare minimum... that or you have no clue what actually goes on with contracts like these.

      --
      Nerd.
  3. Europa, but differently by arogier · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Really if we're just looking for microbes we're bound to be disappointed. Reminds me of this alien invasion story in the New Yorker. Link

    We need something that can see big things too, so we don't miss some Cthulhu looking thing just beneath the ice while we scrape around for little stuff.

    1. Re:Europa, but differently by weighn · · Score: 1

      Really if we're just looking for microbes we're bound to be disappointed.

      not really. let's look for microbes (most likely candidates) and if the cameras capture some horns or stuff before *NO CARRIER* then we can all hang in excitement until the next mission arrives

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    2. Re:Europa, but differently by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Well, if there is a "big creature" there, microbes certainly exist as well.

      Ok, ok, the whole problem with Europa is the very thick layer of ice, as well as the (very justified) fear of meddling with one of the most likely places to have life in the solar system.

      Also, I'm not sure about the survivability of bacteria that 'seeps out' of the ice.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  4. Bailout Chump Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not both? This is chump change compared to the bailout, and hey! It might actually work!!! :D

    1. Re:Bailout Chump Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually the desing of the space ship is about 80% of the cost. Building another identical would cost 10% extra and the launch itself would take final 10%. So by investion maybe 20% more you could send (almost) identical ships to both worlds.

    2. Re:Bailout Chump Change by halber_mensch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not both? This is chump change compared to the bailout, and hey! It might actually work!!! :D

      Hey, you're not using my tax dollars to create jobs for alien workers...

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  5. Who cares how much it costs... by Loopy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just call it "stimulus" and us yanks will just print some more money for it. :/

    1. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Print? you mean Input some more digits for it.

    2. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just call it "stimulus" and us yanks will just print some more money for it. :/

      There's nothing wrong in this economic environment with printing money.

      We are facing a severe spectre of deflation, unofficially I think its already happening.

      While hyperinflation is bad, it's unlikely to happen with such a massive collapse of the credit markets and money supply, but deflation is a severe concern as the majority of people and businesses have taken on considerable debts.

      Deflation makes debts more onerous. The last thing we need in an environment where people's wages are being crushed in a vice is to make their student loans even harder to pay, or conversely the last thing we need in an environment where consumer spending is slowing is to allow prices to drop, rendering corporate debts more onerous... making either untenable for their respective parties will only lead to more disaster.

      Printing money with what in any other times would be considered dangerous and reckless abandon is actually a good way to provide a counter-force to this threat.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Deflation might suck if you are already loaded up with debt, but not all of us are. I kind of like the idea of having everything drop in price, except for my wage that is. It might actually encourage me to take out a loan.

    4. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      > There's nothing wrong in this economic environment with printing money.

      Of course not. It's not 'this economic environment' that would take the hit...you heartless, short-sighted lout!

    5. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by weighn · · Score: 1

      Just call it "stimulus" and us yanks will just print some more money for it. :/

      There's nothing wrong in this economic environment with printing money.

      Inflation and interest rates can easily get out of hand if we get to, erm, stimulated.

      credit crises (now) > cash crises (after govt goes into deficit) > print money > inflation/high int rates ... if we add further job cuts into the mix at this stage the cycle renews > more foreclosures > housing slump, food prices spiralling.

      printing money is the prescription under the old rules, but ...

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    6. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Jay+Tarbox · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this whole "printing money" issue. If, in fact a lot of money/wealth was "erased" by the carious crashes (mostly electronically)- isn't printing money just putting it back rather than truly adding more money?

    7. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just call it "stimulus" and us yanks will just print some more money for it. :/

      Funny but actually your comment shows exactly what's wrong with the US:
      1. You need money.
      2. You print money (this has costs).
      3. The money you printed is still just as worthless since worth is a quality. If you don't have any quality then quantity won't do you any good at all (hello Mr. Hyper-inflation).
      4. ...
      5. NO profit!

      2008 was the end of the American era, almost precisely 40 years after the first generation advocating a culture of personal irresponsibility and the morality of debauchery (it's what yuppies/bankers and hippies/politicians have in common).

      Snow Crash next? It's not like you'll all automagically disappear (unless you do something even more stupid).

    8. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's not like you'll all automagically disappear (unless you do something even more stupid).
      Yellowstone would like a word.

    9. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

      Careful. They might have to paste another number next to the "debt clock" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debt_Clock

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    10. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The effect of inflation is to make dollars (in wallets, bank statements, and promissory notes) less significant compared to real goods and work products.

      The effect of deflation is the opposite.

      So, if you have a huge positive net worth in dollars (cash in the bank or your wallet) deflation helps you out. Those dollars become even more valuable as people desperate for work will do anything to get even a few of them from you.

      However, if you have a mortgage and student loans and a big negative net worth in dollars (numbers on promissory notes) inflation is your best friend. Your work product and assets become more valuable, and your debt becomes trivial.

      A few years ago my parent's mortgage payment on their 4-bedroom house was lower than my rent for a 1 bedroom apartment. That is inflation for you. Prices and wages went up so that their mortgage became a trivial cost to them since that cost was fixed.

      If you are certain deflation is coming the last thing you want to do is take out a loan. The loan payments will become a bigger and bigger share of your income as your wages drop. The best thing you can do is sell your house, pay off your debt, put that cash in the bank, and rent. As your rent drops you'll be much further ahead.

      Of course, if you bet on deflation and the government starts printing money look out! Your rent will soar. Just look at anybody who bought their home before the 1970s on a fixed mortgage - they cleaned up!

    11. Re:Who cares how much it costs... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Deflation might suck if you are already loaded up with debt, but not all of us are.

      I don't know the actual numbers, but most people ARE loaded up with debt. That might be a mortgage or student loan. That means that a larger debt load hurts a lot more people than it would "help".

      I kind of like the idea of having everything drop in price, except for my wage that is.

      You don't live in a vacuum in isolation with everyone else and the whole economy. Everyone else effects you, since the economy links us all together. Deflation is bad for people without debt because you just might not HAVE a job in a deflationary economy. Wages are hard for employers to cut, so they wind up just laying people off.

      --
      AccountKiller
  6. Misread.. by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Funny

    would cost several billion dollars/euros to build and execute

    I misread that one as "would cost several billion dollars/euros to build an executable" and thought "what the heck of a compiler they are using!!"

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:Misread.. by master_p · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the same one used by 3DRealms to compile DNF...

    2. Re:Misread.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would cost several billion dollars/euros to build and execute

      I misread that one as "would cost several billion dollars/euros to build an executable" and thought "what the heck of a compiler they are using!!"

      Based on their R&D budget, I'd say... Microsoft.

  7. Time for another Apollo by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Send a manned mission to Titan.

    1. Re:Time for another Apollo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd love to see the flag-planting ceremony for that.

      *Sploosh*

    2. Re:Time for another Apollo by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Send a manned mission to Titan.

      As I recall, that happened in a Stephen Baxter novel about ten years ago. It was set in an awful dystopian future in which the loss of the shuttle Columbia in a re-entry accident led to the neglect and eventual abandonment of the manned space programme, against the backdrop of a rise in superstition, fundamentalism and paranoia in America as the Chinese gradually surpass them as the leading world power.

      Yeah. It's always embarrassing how badly wrong SF writers get the near future, isn't it?

      Oh, and for the record, it was absolutely awful. The only worthwhile bit is the planning of a manned Titan mission on a shoestring, using every last bit of space hardware available just before NASA is shut down for good. The Shuttle-C, the Enterprise, Spacelab, NERVA, LEMs pulled out of a museum and hacked up into Titan landers, a decades-old Saturn V picked up off the lawn, dusted down and fuelled up... Ridiculous, but as space nerd fantasy goes it's hard to beat :-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Time for another Apollo by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      LEMs pulled out of a museum and hacked up into Titan landers

      No Baxter used the Apollo CM for that. I made the suggestion because I believe a manned mission to Titan is about as difficult now as the Apollo landings were in 1960. It is a nice, hard goal to set.

  8. WHAT ?? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

    "On the other hand, Titan has two enticing features in the search for life: liquids on the surface, and a thick atmosphere that can be used to slow down a spacecraft and help put it into orbit."

    Going there just because it is easier is nothing but a crock. The ONLY criterion for a visit should be: which is judged to be a more likely candidate for life?

    The suggestion that they should go there because it is easier, is like the guy who says he lost some money "around the corner" but is looking over here instead because the light is better.

    Sheesh. That's logic for you. From the people who are supposed to try to do it! Is the fact that I am less than impressed apparent yet?

    1. Re:WHAT ?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Going there just because it is easier is nothing but a crock. The ONLY criterion for a visit should be: which is judged to be a more likely candidate for life?

      NASA uses the search for life to justify space exploration, but the search is almost certain to fail. All known life (ie, on Earth) is obviously exothermic. The oxygen in our atmosphere is a clear marker for life. There is nothing comparable to this elsewhere in the solar system.

    2. Re:WHAT ?? by Torsoboy · · Score: 1

      Seems like a statistics problem. Chances of finding life vs. chance of mission failure. If the chance for mission failure is too high, you won't find life anyways. I do agree with your sentiment that they should try to minimize the chance of failure before ruling it out, but I don't think it's "bad" to consider this chance. (Now for stupid example that oversimplifies things to make it seem like I'm correct) If you have one mission with a 10% chance of finding life with a 70% chance of success, that's a 7% chance of finding life overall (despite if it's there or not). If it's 15% of finding but 40% success, that's only 6% chance of finding life overall. Now if only we knew the actual percentages...

    3. Re:WHAT ?? by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously, life cant exist without oxygen...

      oxygen catasrophe

      Anaerobic organisms

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    4. Re:WHAT ?? by theM_xl · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, it's that rather narrow view of life that has me convinced that we're not going to know we've discovered life until it declares war on us.

    5. Re:WHAT ?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      Life disturbs local entropy. An example of which is our oxygen atmosphere which is made by living things. Excess methane on Mars and Titan has been attributed to life, but is most likely the result of natural processes.

    6. Re:WHAT ?? by theredshoes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe the basis for life is out there, dirt, frozen water maybe. Every time I look at pictures of places like Titan or Europa it makes me a little sad because they are barren wastelands. The problem is the planets have to have there orbits changed, defrosted and maybe life will happen. I can't imagine we will ever be able to successfully move a planet in the first place, then see if it can sustain life in the second place. It seems like a huge impossibility to me that that will ever happen. It seems more practical to put money into space stations and space tourism.

      "It would be a pretty big waste of space."- Carl Sagan

    7. Re:WHAT ?? by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      Fascinating and sad.

      Titan pic

    8. Re:WHAT ?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You know, it's that rather narrow view of life that has me convinced that we're not going to know we've discovered life until it declares war on us.

      We can't look for the answer until we know the question. (apologies to DNA).

    9. Re:WHAT ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this context "easier" is a dysphemism for "less expensive."

      Costs matter, but to cut a long argument short, your criterion is all wrong. The correct criterion must also take into account our finite resources. Therefore, the correct criterion is: "On which world are we more likely to discover life?"

    10. Re:WHAT ?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Stephen Baxter's novel Titan ends in the far future where the sun has expanded and destroyed the earth. Titan has thawed out and has its own life. It is a good read though much of it is quite depressing due to Baxters negative views of humanity.

    11. Re:WHAT ?? by Spinalcold · · Score: 1

      I reply as WHAT?? bioligy?! sorry, but the exploration of how planets and moons are created, is that not important? There are so many other ideas we can gleam from either, from chemistry to geolegy. The environments are drasically different, so the information is differnt. Why does life have to be the only thing?

    12. Re:WHAT ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ONLY criterion for a visit should be: which is judged to be a more likely candidate for life?

      Why? We'll eventually get around to both, and if there's life on either it's not going anywhere soon.

      And that's assuming we have a good case for one having life over the other. We currently do not. The scant evidence we have suggests that if Titan has much life on its surface, it is smaller than naked-eye visible or it is not where the lander landed. That's about all we can say with confidence.

      I would suggest that a better criterion would be "which mission will yield more data?" I can't answer that, being no expert on the topic, but I suspect that Titan would simply on the basis of having an active atmosphere and weather patterns, which puts it in a very small minority of bodies that we can actively explore. We're not talking about the lander mission we all want for Europa, after all, just an orbiter.

    13. Re:WHAT ?? by Geheimagent · · Score: 1

      Life disturbs local entropy. An example of which is our oxygen atmosphere which is made by living things. Excess methane on Mars and Titan has been attributed to life, but is most likely the result of natural processes.

      Isn't life a natural process?

    14. Re:WHAT ?? by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Baxter and I have a lot in common.

    15. Re:WHAT ?? by geckipede · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the case of Mars, what we're looking for is survivors from a long dead ecosystem. Any big changes to the world caused by life would have happened billions of years ago and been wiped away by now.

    16. Re:WHAT ?? by theredshoes · · Score: 1

      Maybe if NASA decides to ever ask the Russians to get involved they will go to both Titan and Europa. I think the Russians are more into space tourism and building stations. I just think the average person would be more excited about space tourism than how Titan and Europa were created. It won't happen for another 10+ years according to the article anyway. I would assume that would give them enough time to take more pictures. I am not sure what the time frame is for the pictures to come back from those distances. Europa is closer, so I would assume it would be easier to make the trip there. Forward my link below if you can read it. I can, I thought it was funny Mr. or Ms. Geolegy and Bioligy. :)

      If yuo can raed tihs, you hvae a sgtrane mnid, too. Can you raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

    17. Re:WHAT ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you have taken a look at Mars any time recently, but it sure looks disturbed to me.

      And outright denying the chance there is life on Titan is foolish.
      Titan is a young Earth.
      The chances of life not being there are incredibly low, going by what we know of the evolution of Earth and the life on it.

      If we actually get there in my life time and they prove there is no life there, i will have my nuts cut off and eat them.
      I say this knowing the chances are so incredibly low it is almost impossible for there not to be life on there.
      It has the heat, it has the chemicals, it certainly has the electrical activity, all known to create life. (AFAWK)

      The only major problem might be the fact that Titan goes hidden for extensive periods of time behind Saturn. But could there be enough heat generated from the stress between Titan and Saturn to prevent severe cold temperatures?

    18. Re:WHAT ?? by rdtheta · · Score: 1

      There are some counter points here which should be made with respect to your analogy. In our case, the guy doesn't know where he lost the money, and might not even be sure what it is when he finds it, as others have noted. He's guessing which place looks more likely. And second, ease of getting there is important: if you don't make it, then there is no search at all. NASA has to weigh risks and rewards, just like everyone else. And I guess I should also mention that there's more to learn than just a "Is there life?(y/n)". It's just the most exciting thing.

    19. Re:WHAT ?? by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

      I know, lets spend billions and 10 years of research on building a spacecraft that will crash because we sent it to Europa without the technology required to land safely, sounds great

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    20. Re:WHAT ?? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      It isn't like there aren't already boatloads of lifeforms on earth that hibernate for months, years or decades... Solved problem. :-)

    21. Re:WHAT ?? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I would rather not concentrate so hard on the search for life and consider the likelihood of discovering 'new stuff'. Life would be great to find, but if the odds of finding life are similar, I'd rather go to the moon that has more activity going on - ice sheets thrusting up, clouds, etc. I'd hate to land in a place that we thought we'd find life, find none, and then be sitting on a barren sheet of ice, waiting for the batteries to die.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    22. Re:WHAT ?? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Going there just because it is easier is nothing but a crock. The ONLY criterion for a visit should be: which is judged to be a more likely candidate for life?

      Perhaps. However, one of the main criteria that WILL be used is "how much does it cost?". And "easier" costs less.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    23. Re:WHAT ?? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Titan is a young Earth.
      The chances of life not being there are incredibly low, going by what we know of the evolution of Earth and the life on it.

      Because Earth, in it's early life, sported a surface temperature of -179 C, or -290 F, and as a consequence, possessed lakes of liquid hydrocarbons, and an atmosphere that was "nearly free of water vapor" (source)?

      Sorry, bub, anyone who believes Titan constitutes a "young Earth" doesn't know much about either place. While Titan may possess atmopheric and geological processes that are analogous to those on Earth, it is by no means Earth-like.

    24. Re:WHAT ?? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are overlooking some rather glaring exceptions. The abundant life around deep-ocean volcanic vents, for example, that derive their energy from external heat and sulfur compounds.

      It has been observed that Titan and Europa obviously have heat sources, whether those sources are radioactive in nature, or due to tidal forces, or whatever is really irrelevant at the moment... the big thing being that the temperature range allows for liquid-phase organics or even water. If life can exist abundantly around our own deep-ocean vents, then it could probably exist in those places, as well.

    25. Re:WHAT ?? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

      But they are NOT "frozen wastelands"... except from our own point of view. They are thermically and geologically active. New features arise and disappear according to seasons. They have "weather". Liquid is known to exist in large quantities.

      You are being hopelessly anthropocentric. If you are expecting "life" in the form of something like your dog, you are likely to be disappointed. But that doesn't imply -- at all -- that life is nonexistent there!

    26. Re:WHAT ?? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you think the moon is "more active" than Titan or Europa, then you haven't been keeping up. On the contrary, Titan and Europa both are much more active than the moon.

    27. Re:WHAT ?? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are reading much more into it than there really is. A strong implication of the joke is that the guy KNOWS the money was lost around the corner. Otherwise it wouldn't be funny.

      Nevertheless, I still assert that it is a valid analogy. What good is doing a "more likely for success" mission, if what you are after is LESS likely to be found there in the first place? It is a pointless exercise.

      For another analogy, say you want a Disney experience. It would be like driving from San Francisco to Disneyland in Anaheim, rather than from San Francisco to Disney World in Orlando, simply because your old car is more likely to arrive there without complications. Even though you know that hotels around Disneyland are all booked up, but Disney World has lots of room...

    28. Re:WHAT ?? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean Luna, I meant either Titan or Europa; whichever is more 'interesting' from a new science point of view.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    29. Re:WHAT ?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You are overlooking some rather glaring exceptions. The abundant life around deep-ocean volcanic vents, for example, that derive their energy from external heat and sulfur compounds.

      Yes there are organisms on Earth which live in environments similar to a few places on Europa, Titan, etc. But I am not convinced that those organisms would exist without the rest of our biosphere. They are our outposts but I don't think they can be self contained for ever.

  9. Interesting Mission Concepts by volcanopele · · Score: 5, Informative
    Both the Europa and Titan mission would be very exciting missions. The Titan mission is a bit more ambitious though, with a NASA-built Titan orbiter that would map the surface at 50 meters per pixel (so not quite Google Earth resolution, but enough to define the major geologic processes that take place on Titan) and an Europe-built hot-air balloon and lander. The latter would land in the largest expanse of open liquid (methane instead of water) known outside of Earth.

    The Europa mission is a bit more tame by comparison, but has a lot more technological development to back it up (which would help it come in somewhere close to its original budget). There are two orbiters. The NASA-built orbiter would explore the inner two large moons of Jupiter: Io and Europa; while the ESA-built orbiter would explore the outer two large satellites: Ganymede and Callisto. Unlike the Titan mission, no landers are planned with this mission, but the instruments on-board both spacecraft would allow it to provide more detailed global mapping of Europa and Ganymede than the Titan mission, which as mentioned before would only provide 50-m per pixel global mapping with selected areas at higher resolution imaged by the balloon (which would be limited to a relatively narrow latitude band since Titan's winds are mostly east-west).

    The NASA-JPL website has a page with more detailed documents outlining the mission plans for each moon: http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/library/

    --
    The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    1. Re:Interesting Mission Concepts by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Here's a much less tame Europa mission: A Submarine for Europa.

      It would be amazing, but it's probably an idea ahead of its time.

  10. Disgusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can throw as much money as we like at the Halliburtons of this world and rain the national vault to fund wars which enrich our leadership's business cronies. We can use whatever's left over to bailout people so greedy and incompetent that they'll ever change their ways.

    But we have to choose between Europa or Titan.

    1. Re:Disgusting. by furby076 · · Score: 1

      But we have to choose between Europa or Titan.

      Because in the minds of our leadership, and the stupid-common-man, there can be no benefit to space exploration. Nevermind:
      1) Exploration expands our knowledge, intelligence, imagination, soul
      2) Helps innovate technologies such as: Satellites, cell phones, fire-retardent materials firemen use, microwaves, cereal marshmellows, weather detection/prediction, and more
      3) A way to help enrich us with healthy competition/cooperation with the International communities (we were never so great as when we raced against Russia to the sky...it was a healthy way to show dominence, you know without blowing each other up).

      No - sorry my /. friend - but space exploration is not necessary to us at all, in fact, putting your tax dollars, in the bailout, to support Hollywood is much more important.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  11. And the next thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know, you're gonna see some alien spaceships in Earth's orbit, pissed off because some know-it-all geeks had to explore another planets moon. Really, do the humans think they own everything in the whole damn solar system?

    1. Re:And the next thing.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Really, do the humans think they own everything in the whole damn solar system?

      Yes, we do.

      And if there is no intelligent life in the galaxy, we own everything in the whole damn galaxy.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. I saw we go to Titan by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

    "All These Planets Are Yours Except Europa, Attempt No Landing There"
    No point pissing off the starchild

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    1. Re:I saw we go to Titan by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 0

      USE THEM TOGETHER.

      USE THEM IN PEACE. /shakes his hands at the "no all caps" filter

    2. Re:I saw we go to Titan by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think the last bit was just in the film. In the book the message was clearly a warning to stay the fsck off Europa, or else.

    3. Re:I saw we go to Titan by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      "All These Planets Are Yours Except Europa, Attempt No Landing There"

      No point pissing off the starchild

      As long as we land before 2010, we're fine ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  13. It's simple, really... by nicodoggie · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the book version, we send the thing to Titan. Then when Stanley Kubrick does the movie, send it to Europa!

    1. Re:It's simple, really... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      In the book version, we send the thing to Titan.

      Japetus

      Then when Stanley Kubrick does the movie, send it to Europa!

      Io.

    2. Re:It's simple, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the book version, we send the thing to Titan.

      Japetus

      Wooshetus.

      Then when Stanley Kubrick does the movie, send it to Europa!

      Io.

      Woosho.

  14. Humans on Mars? by NiteRiderXP · · Score: 1

    More than a decade ago while still in school I was reading some space exploration books for kids. I was obsessed with anything containing science in a digestible manner. All of these books stated that by 2020 humans would be on Mars.

    Now the latest Bush policy proposes going to the moon by 2020. Who cares about the moon, we've been there four decades ago. Yes, it could have been faked, but still...

    This latest post about sending a robot to one moon or other by 2020 is appalling.

  15. Just dreamin' a bit... by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Two things: First, a question. What are the orbital mechanics? Would it be possible to build a "bus" that could drop off a navigation-capable "probe taxi" near each destination?

    Second, a dream. If ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one. High-acceleration supply/instrument packages could be sent before and after them. A serious commitment to zero-gravity construction could be undertaken. The cost would be huge, but the payback would potentially be on a scale rivaling the technology revolution that grew out of Apollo.

    And let's face it, the odds that we're screwing up our only livable habitat in potentially-ugly ways are increasing. Developing the capacity to move at least a few people elsewhere isn't such a terrible idea.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Second, a dream. If ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one.

      I agree. Sometimes it is easier to justify the harder projects with ultimately better outcomes. JFK pulled it off with Apollo. I wonder if Obama will see an opportunity to extend US influence to the outer planets.

    2. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      First, a question. What are the orbital mechanics? Would it be possible to build a "bus" that could drop off a navigation-capable "probe taxi" near each destination?

      No.
       
       

      Second, a dream. If ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one. High-acceleration supply/instrument packages could be sent before and after them. A serious commitment to zero-gravity construction could be undertaken. The cost would be huge, but the payback would potentially be on a scale rivaling the technology revolution that grew out of Apollo.

      Given that the technology revolution spawned by Apollo was essentially zero...

    3. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And let's face it, the odds that we're screwing up our only livable habitat in potentially-ugly ways are increasing. Developing the capacity to move at least a few people elsewhere isn't such a terrible idea.

      And then do what with them once they're there? If we can terraform any other planet into a habitable place, it's hard to see why we couldn't do it to Earth to undo the environmental damage we've wrought. After all, Earth currently is habitable and anything we're likely to do wouldn't move it further from that mark than the other planets.

    4. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things: First, a question. What are the orbital mechanics? Would it be possible to build a "bus" that could drop off a navigation-capable "probe taxi" near each destination?

      Yes it is possible by for example utilizing the Interplanetary Transport Network however that does not necessitate that it's a good approach (it is generally better and less costly to launch smaller payloads rather than big more complex ones).

      If one does use the ITN one would have to separate the minor crafts one by one when required from the "motherbus" while it is still traveling the ITN (and by the way the ITN is a dynamic network constantly changing according to the celestial mechanics of our solar system so there's an awful lot of math involved but the calculations of the journey could be broken down into smaller parts just as was done with the initial grand exploratory journeys of the solar system last century).

      About your second question we need to get launch prizes down first and foremost but luckily a lot of people are trying to do just that and eventually someone will succeed. The best prize these days is about 20 000 dollars for a kilo to LEO and at that prize there aren't enough people that can afford to try even the least mass-intensive approaches (utilizing non-Earth resources/material) and without plenty of different competing approaches the likelihood of success is extremely slim (the monolithic approach followed during the last fifty years just does not work: our collective experience base continues to hover close to zero).

    5. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Two things: First, a question. What are the orbital mechanics? Would it be possible to build a "bus" that could drop off a navigation-capable "probe taxi" near each destination?

      Possible, but unlikely. Usually, to get to Saturn, NASA would do a slingshot manoeuvre around Jupiter to pick up speed. So a Titan mission would likely get to Europa's vicinity. However, the hard thing would be stopping there. In space travel making any change to your orbit takes a lot of energy. You've built up a lot of energy in the slingshot manoeuvre, which you'd have to get rid of. It would be like jumping off a swing at the bottom of the arc. Second, a dream. If ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one.

      Multi-year missions would require a recycling biosphere. We are likely centuries away from something like that. There is the water cycle, the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle, a bunch of cycles. We can close the water cycle. We can close the oxygen cycle. We have yet to close the carbon cycle, let alone the nitrogen cycle, the potassium, iron, phosphorous cycles, and dozens of others. Not only that, but there's radiation to deal with, long term energy sources to build and maintain, psychological effects, physiological effects. The problems are astronomical.

      And let's face it, the odds that we're screwing up our only livable habitat in potentially-ugly ways are increasing. Developing the capacity to move at least a few people elsewhere isn't such a terrible idea.

      Yeah, but shipping a few people off planet is not going to fix our ecology.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by joh · · Score: 1

      f ever there was a time to send a large human crew on a career-length mission (maybe 30 - 40 years), this would be the one. High-acceleration supply/instrument packages could be sent before and after them. A serious commitment to zero-gravity construction could be undertaken.

      A nice thing about Titan is that it has a thick atmosphere which is not breathable but otherwise fine for humans. You could build habitats that just need to be airtight and insulated, but not pressurized. Even large structures (like inflated domes or tents) should be easy. Together with the low gravity this makes it not only very easy to land but also to live there. Much better than Mars, actually. You can't have much solar power, but wind power should be no problem. Venturing outside would require really warm clothing and some oxygen, but no pressure suit.

      And you could not only have flying cars there, you could even have flying bicycles ;-)

    7. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Research in evolutionary biology suggests this may not be the case. It would probably be easier to take a system as complex as our current environment and turn it into something else entirely than to turn the clock back. Krakatoa after the major eruption in 1883 is an example of significant differences that arise even within the context of an otherwise-stable environment. The climax community that emerged a hundred years after the eruption was significantly different than the one which existed before it. Both achieved homeostasis, but in different ways.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Either I'm missing your point or you're missing mine.

      Sure, it'd be hard to turn the clock back on our atmosphere. I'm not saying it would be harder than, say, messing the atmosphere up. That wasn't my point. My point is that it'd be easier to fix OUR atmosphere (which has all the right basic components in roughly the right amounts and is in a pretty good place relative to the Sun to sustain us) than to terraform, say, Mars or Titan.

    9. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I'm saying you may be right, but maybe not. Call it the "Humpty Dumpty Effect". Given the complexity of the Earth's global environment and the fact that it's an evolving system, not a static one, going back may not be an option. The composition of the atmosphere, for example, has changed pretty significantly over Earth's geological history, and the changes have been driven by poorly-understood biogeochemical processes. The current balance of gases and its generators do not necessarily act in phase, or in a way we can reproduce.

      Bottom line: I'd rather dick around with the atmosphere of another planet than this one, especially when it looks like it may be relatively easy to set processes in motion, but difficult to stop or control them.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    10. Re:Just dreamin' a bit... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Sure, but all of your arguments also apply to any other atmosphere we dick around with: the processes involved may not be conducive to creating a habitable atmosphere for the long term. Earth is more active, biologically and geologically, but we also know that our ideal atmosphere is somewhere near something of a metastable (or better) state and we don't even know that such a thing exists for Mars or Titan.

      And while I agree that I'd rather muck about with Mars's atmosphere (planetary protection be damned), if Earth's atmosphere were truly on the ropes, a lot of my qualms would evaporate pretty fast.

  16. Call the spaceship Avenger by bolek_b · · Score: 1

    I would prefer Titan, along the closing lines of one nice book: "Puppet masters -- the free men are coming to kill you! Death and Destruction!" Now that would be a nice preemptive strike on those parasites :-)

    1. Re:Call the spaceship Avenger by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Great book. If you get a chance to see the movie do yourself a favour and forget it. Its horrible.

      Biological testing for the returning crew would be more involved than was used for apollo, I think.

  17. both, plus Venus and Pluto by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The mountains of Venus would be interesting. Radar reflection suggests that it might rain bismuth or lead.

    Landing on Pluto would be a nice challenge. First there is the problem of slowing down enough. Then there is the problem of landing without melting a deep hole.

    1. Re:both, plus Venus and Pluto by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

      We tried to land one Venus, the atmosphere crushed the lander in a few seconds, we barely got a glimpse of the surface

      --
      Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    2. Re:both, plus Venus and Pluto by John+Bayko · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you mean "we" humans, there were ten Soviet landers - 8 Venera, 2 Vega. Most lasted at least half an hour, some almost 2 hours.

      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/chronology_venus.html

      The Unites States never attempted a landing, though one mission did send several probes into the atmosphere (they landed in the sense that a meteorite lands, but that's not what you meant).

      Oh, someone re-processed the images, using modern computer technology. A great improvement over the very limited techniques of the time, they're pretty amazing:

      http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm

  18. It's pretty obvious really... by Julz · · Score: 1

    We should go to both ;)

    I'm all for Arthur C. Clarke's original novel version of 2001 where we went to Saturn's moon Titan and then in the novel 2010 a joint American/Soviet effort went to Jupiter's moon Europa. And I think it would be fitting to call the craft "Alexei Leonov".

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
    1. Re:It's pretty obvious really... by Convector · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the book for a long time, but I believe it was Iapetus, not Titan.

  19. Which one is best for implanting life? by Bearhouse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's go to the best place for living there some day. (Sounds like neither)

    So, we're always careful about not infecting extra-terrestrial ecosystems the way we have here on Earth. We're obsessed with finding some kind of 'life', (but have not so far). Well and good, and I've always supported those points of view.

    But we might want to consider the chilling possibility that one day the Earth might become uninhabitable, (asteroid strike, nuclear war, superbug, whatever). OK, it's improbable, but then again so is finding 'life' on some barren, frozen moon.

    If that did happen - maybe hundreds of years from now - our descendants would be pretty glad if we'd shipped out bugs that had quietly been transforming methane into oxygen (for example) over the centuries...

    1. Re:Which one is best for implanting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...asteroid strike, applied science, superbug, whatever...

      Fixed that for you ^_^

    2. Re:Which one is best for implanting life? by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      our descendants would be pretty glad if we'd shipped out bugs that had quietly been transforming methane into oxygen (for example) over the centuries...

      Probably about as glad as we are that our ancestors left goats on remote islands they discovered. i.e. not at all.

      If we invented bugs that could transmute elements (which is what you need to do to transform methane into oxygen) then it would be time for the "I, for one," overlord jokes.

  20. Several Billion? No problem. by unholy1 · · Score: 1

    a mission to either would cost several billion dollars/euros to build and execute

    Pah... that's pocket change compared to the amounts that are being bandied around for "stimulus" & bailouts these days! :\

  21. I'm amazed by anonymShit · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm really amazed that no one came up with this simple idea: what happens if there is some kind of primitive microscopic life in any of those worlds, we bring it to Earth, and have a major epidemic?
    I can imagine in the news "the Titan victeria(strange alien cross between virus and bacteria) has produced 3000million deaths...govt producing tunnels underground for nonzombie survivors..."

    For the sceptics on putting money into this: money into science always pays back, you shouldn't worry. It's only when you put money in the hands of bankers or such scum (brokers, politicians, owners of big firmas...) that you should be worrying. By the way anybody has seen yet any improvement, any difference by the injection of money in the banks? What I see is that OUR money has disappeared into the hands of those robbers. This would never happen with scientific missions (which discover things, create technology, blabla)

    1. Re:I'm amazed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Andromeda Strain

      I want to read it again now.

      But yes you Sir are correct that The Idiocy Strain is far worse, sad to see the US go.

  22. Both? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not?
    A single mission to drop two probes!

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Both? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Except they are in opposite directions right now. http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Both? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

      It depends on when the are going to launch and where the two bits will separate.
      If you can wait, you can save.

      --
      Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
      For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    3. Re:Both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's hard enough to hit a moving object from a moving object. Let alone hit a moving object from a moving object from a moving object. It would take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...oh wait, I withdraw my comment.

  23. THREE kinds of (possible) life on TITAN! by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Informative

    While the Titan mission is admittedly more ambitious (and potentially more costly) the reason why we should go to Titan is because there might be THREE radically different kinds of life there. This is from Biologist Peter Ward's book in his book "LIFE AS WE DO NOT KNOW IT".

    One might be related to, or if we're not careful with contamination, might be the same as our DNA based "CHON" (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) life. They would presumably live on the surface feeding on the hydrocarbons drifting down from the sky; similar to our methanogens or other chemo-trophic bacteria on earth.

    Another kind of life might be something a "little" different (but still really unlike anything seen on earth, life that uses AMMONIUM as its working fluid as opposed to our life which uses water. (It would presumably live in the ammonium ocean speculated to beneath the ice) that forms Titan's surface. It's only a "little" different because it would still be basically be CHON life but who knows what its metabolism would run on?

    Finally he even mentions the possibility of a SILICON based life (as opposed to our carbon based life). No, unlike the star trek Horta from "Devil in the Dark', it needn't live deep underground. Instead it would life in some of the ethane-methane lakes at the surface (which would be capable of making the silicon soluble and would substitue in for carbon I guess). So all of life's components; fats, sugars, proteins, RNA and DNA would use silicon as a major structural component. Now that's different!

    For these admittedly extremely speculative reasons he suggests Titan should be on our priority list of places to visit. He recommends sending a biochemist/biochemical lab to Titan. Anyway if they found even ONE of the three kinds of life there, it would (even if they were just micro-organisms) be an incredible discovery. Of course because of Titan's distance it'll be a long while before we can put a human there, maybe we'll have to wait for A.I.

    Unfortunately as much as I (and many other people including James Cameron) would love to see "black smokers" (geothermal/chemical powered undersea geysers) at Europa, Dr, Ward explains that there is just not enough energy available to Europan life (from the dim sunlight filtering through the ice or the flexing of rocky core by Jupiter's gravitational tides) to drive an ecosystem. I think he claims there would be enough to make, perhaps, 120 tons of biological matter dispersed in a volume twice that of Earth's oceans! A low flying orbiter scanning for molecular signatures in the ice or trying to capture ice crystals kicked up off the surface would likely find nothing. Even if it did find some complex organic molecules (proteins, long carbohydrates or DNA) that would be relatively indirect evidence; there would always be concern about contamination. This is in comparison to a direct observation of life on Titan, we could watch it grow!

    That's why we should go to Titan, there may be a higher chance of life be present there NOW than even at Mars (recent methane plumes discoveries notwithstanding). And how cool would it be to send an orbiter AND a balloon AND a lander (or even a boat!).

  24. Nature says Titan by Schiphol · · Score: 1

    The Nature Podcast -which, by the way, all of you nerds should listen to if you do not already do- covered this story some three weeks ago. They say Titan. Their reasons are, roughly:

    * Although Europa is our best bet for an independent origin of life -life on Mars may share causes with life of Earth- studying this would involve intimate measuring below the surface. Drilling in Europa, though, may be a century, and not just two or three decades, away.
    * A Titan mission, although unlikely to find life, may more easily and more thoroughly study the surface of the satellite. This has to do with Titan's atmosphere, and the possibility of launching a hot-air balloon to map the surface.
    * The third reason: hot-air ballons are cool and romantic. Also, we could for the first time devise a floating lander. More fun and romanticism. Floating on lakes may be a one-off, but ballooning may be useful for many other cellestial bodies in the Solar System.

    So, Titan.

    1. Re:Nature says Titan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Floating on lakes may be a one-off, but ballooning may be useful for many other cellestial bodies in the Solar System.

      Ballooning is floating on a lake of a considerably lighter and less dense fluid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Re:fist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like nipples.

    You must be new here.

  26. Relative Distances by duane534 · · Score: 1

    Considering the relative distances between the moons themselves and the distance between the moons and Earth, wouldn't it make more sense to do BOTH with one craft?

    1. Re:Relative Distances by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Er, what? First off all, we're talking orbiters (or better) here, so you have to stop. Leaving orbit of Jupiter to head to Saturn takes a lot more fuel than just flying straight by. Plus, the instrument load-out would need to be different for both moons, eliminating a lot of the point of sending a dedicated probe.

      Also, at the present moment, Jupiter and Saturn are farther from each other than either is from the Earth. Of course, distances aren't really a good measure for this sort of thing to begin with.

  27. Clarke by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

    Can't go to Europa, the monolith said so.

  28. Probability of Life by Collinp6 · · Score: 1

    I think that probably Titan is the most likely to have life, if any of them do, because of its atmosphere.

  29. Re:fist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ralph Wiggum is that you?

  30. Simple answer... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Really, do the humans think they own everything in the whole damn solar system?

    I don't see no tentacles or feelers raised to answer that question.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  31. Re:fist? by GreenTech11 · · Score: 1

    When I grow up, I want to be a donut

    --
    Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
  32. Re:fist? by doublecuffs · · Score: 0

    Mmmmm Donuts!

  33. missions beyond my life expectancy now by peter303 · · Score: 1

    With cost-saving gravitational assists, many of these proposed missions have time-lines into the 2020s and 2030s. Boomers wont be living that long.

    1. Re:missions beyond my life expectancy now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boomers wont be living that long.

      One can only hope.

      And please take your John Lennon and JFK personality cults with you.

  34. Obvious solution: Kill Mars Mission by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Putting people on Mars is a waste of time.

    Kill research on a Mars mission and find out more about the universe in general before the resources run out. Kill the Mars mission and fund the rest.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  35. Standardize by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thinking about Voyager I and II and the Mariner series, maybe it's time to create a standard probe platform (orbiter and lander halves if you insist) and build them in large quantities. Make them rugged and try to minimize expensive customization. Keep them relatively small so several can be launched at once. Then start tossing them everywhere. Use whatever orbital mechanics work (Hohmann, interplanetary transport network, whatever). But send 2, 3, or more to each destination.

    Launch a dozen at Jupiter with arrivals spaced apart and you can wait to see if the first one arrives safely. If it does, send the second to another moon or to the same one for redundancy. You now have mission flexibility on a whole new level.

    Send 2 to our moon. Then if you want to try a software upgrade, you can try it on those first.

    And so on.

    The whole point is to get the cost per craft down to the 10's of millions. If you can average 4 for $50 million and buy a rocket to launch the 4 for $50 million, you can now send 40 for the price of one. And now you have a series of missions such that if one fails, it's not a disaster. Will the data be as good as a custom probe? No way. But with so many probes you can take risks you never could before and maybe see things custom probes never could. Risks such as sending them odd places or putting some cheap funky instruments from some university.

    Almost the "Faster Better Cheaper" concept, but based on mass production instead of 1 of a kind probes.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Standardize by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

      A lander suitable for Mars would be very different from a lander suitable for Titan.

    2. Re:Standardize by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      A few problems with that:

      1) Technology keeps moving forward. A standard platform would be obsolete and holding the program *back* within 5-10 years. (As it is, spacecraft use technology that always seems outdated.)

      2) Most re-visiting missions require unique platforms to really cover the scientific goals. What works for Mars doesn't necessarily work for Saturn's rings, for example. Mariner/Pioneer/Voyager avoided this because they were survey missions: we didn't know what we were going to find, so we weren't in a good position to optimize them much.

      3) In the end, a huge fraction (the bulk, I think) comes from fuel and the man-power to operate the spacecraft, not to build it. That's doesn't scale with mass-production.

    3. Re:Standardize by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mass production and standard designs only work if we have a _lot_ of missions, not once every decade or two, in which case the technology is wildly different. If price were no object we could launch to Jupiter every 13 odd months, but for Saturn and beyond there's always that pesky detail of waiting for a gravity assist.

    4. Re:Standardize by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Not as big a problems as you might think. A big chunk of any probe is power, communications/control, and thrust. 3 technologies that could be standardized. Because of the time it takes to do custom probes, it's often 5-10 years between design on paper and launch. Not to mention that if you are spending hundreds of millions, you're less likely to use un-tested cutting edge technology. Compare that to a platform you can pop the latest sensor into because not all your eggs are in one basket (and you don't have to over engineer and test the crap out of it either). You arguing for optimization, I'm arguing that optimization (perfection) is the enemy of good enough. And no, not every probe is identical. Just as similar as possible. Why send a mission to view in infrared and visible perfectly when you can send 4 probes for less money, each with a different pretty good sensors. A sensor package just has to play nice with the power and data buses. A single probe means you have to pick and chose which systems go. Mass production means you can take more risks, bolt on odd sensor packages that wouldn't make it on a one time mission, gather more data and more varied data from more places. I already addressed launch cost assuming it won't scale. Spacecraft operation will scale with mass-production. Standardization of comm and thrust mean you can have a common control room. Those tasks become routine and low key. Data just gets forwarded to the scientists.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    5. Re:Standardize by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      A big chunk of any probe is power, communications/control, and thrust.

      Designing these is not, as far as I know, a large piece of the cost at all. So why would standardizing them be useful?

      Why send a mission to view in infrared and visible perfectly when you can send 4 probes for less money, each with a different pretty good sensors.

      I dispute this claim. The bulk of the cost of any spacecraft isn't in designing the chassis, the communications, or propulsion. It's in instruments, personnel, and fuel needed to send it. More spacecraft need more fuel rather than less and are almost certainly more expensive to send. Sure, it lowers the total risk, but it's not less costly.

      I already addressed launch cost assuming it won't scale. Spacecraft operation will scale with mass-production.

      No, you didn't. You asserted that you could launch 4 spacecraft for the price of one with the same load-out. That's just not true, in general. One spacecraft with all of the same instruments will almost certainly be less massive than four spacecraft, each with its own separate systems. Additionally, you aren't reducing the risk with a single, mass launch since launch is the most dangerous time for a spacecraft. And in any case, a mass launch would really only make much sense if you're sending all the smaller craft to the same destination since different craft have different launch windows.

      Standardization of comm and thrust mean you can have a common control room.

      They already have one. I've been there. (You can visit, too.) And the protocol for communicating the data to the scientists (and from the scientists back to JPL) is also standardized across missions. This has nothing to do with your proposal, though.

      I'm sorry, but a lot of things in the world don't scale well to mass-production. Even if we build a dozen examples of a given small spacecraft, I doubt we'd save any costs apart from design expenses. Interplanetary spacecraft in the current era of exploration just seems to be one of the things that doesn't work well with mass-production. Don't you think Lockheed or another aerospace company would be all over that if it would work?

    6. Re:Standardize by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Sorry if this is becoming boring, but you phrased things as questions.

      Whether you call design just the pencil and paper part, or the process through testing and validation, you do save money by mass producing. A probe doesn't cost $100 million before launch because it was made from platinum. It's the design, tooling, testing, validation, etc etc etc divided by 1. A car is more complex and is tested more than any probe, but only costs thousands to build.

      I believe some people call it "not reinventing the wheel"

      Under the current system, instruments are very costly. Because you have to meet a higher quality level. Four nines of reliability is going to cost more than two nines paid for four times. Yet it will be less reliable. It will require more babying from ground control, and so on.

      You keep making the false assumption that the mass would be the same for custom vs mass produced. Again, custom, you can't cut corners. You have to build redundancy into one unit. Power has to be bigger (just in case), comm has to be more powerful (just in case), onboard electronics need more redundancy (just in case), you need to send more sensors (just in case and to justify the cost). You have to use the most reliable (and expensive) launch system because you can't afford failure.

      Instead, make each probe "good enough." Dump as much redundancy as possible. Cut corners. There is absolutely no reason you need to seed the same loadout on each probe. And there's no reason to send 4 on one launch (cram them here or there on someone elses commercial launch) or to have all 4 depart for the same target (let some orbit the Earth a while and wait for different launch windows).

      Comm may be standard between JPL and scientists, but how about each probe having the same comm hardware? Protocol? Bandwidth? Data structure? Command and control routines? Time to make that boring and routine, the kind of work that a computer takes care of automatically.

      A dozen isn't mass production. That prototype stage. I'm not sure why you feel that mass production, which seems to work for every other human endeavor, would fail when it comes to probes? And no, why would Lockheed or any other big company want to upset the status quo?

      And as someone who's livelyhood depends on making 1 of a kind mechanical devices, and runs of a dozen, runs of hundreds, and runs of 10's of thousands, there is a lot to be saved per unit as volumes go up. You can even use technologies that are too expensive to be used only once.

      Will mass production solve every problem? Of course not. But by sticking with the narrow mindset of sending billion dollar probes every few years, we'll be stuck with rare and expensive gambles forever.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  36. Proxima Centauri Paradox by hierophanta · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Proxima Centauri Paradox
    from: http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/emmyadvancedmedia/2007/05/wideband_cable_.html

    "If we wanted to travel to Alpha Centauri (the nearest star system to the Earth) when should we start the project?"

    Located a mere 24 trillion miles from downtown Manhattan, Proxima Centauri, the dimmest orb in the Alpha Centauri star system, is actually the nearest star to the Earth. It takes light, which travels at 186,200 miles per second, 4.22 years to make the trip.

    Now, the Voyager spacecraft is generally considered to be the fastest man-made object traveling in space. It is heading out into interstellar space at a blistering, 38,000 miles per hour.

    So, if it was pointed at Proxima Centauri (which it is not) it would take Voyager approximately 73,000 years to get there.

    Let's think about project management for a moment. Most of the technology we need for this journey does not yet exist. My rocket scientist friends estimate that it will take mankind approximately 1,000 years to build the ship. Inside that 1,000 year time-frame, let's assume that technological advances allow us to travel four times faster than Voyager's top speed. If we start today, we could reasonably expect to arrive at Proxima Centauri in about 20,000 years.

    However, if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, technological advances might allow us a four-fold increase in speed for each 1,000 years we wait which would reduce travel time to about 2,000 years.

    Which brings us to the Alpha Centauri paradox. If we start the project today, it will take us approximately 20,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri, but if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, the whole trip will take about 12,000 years.

    Yes, in the race to the nearest star, waiting 10,000 years to start will get you there 8,000 years ahead of the people who start building technology today. Would you wait?

  37. 2020? How far away *is* that launch pad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one thinking, why don't they use current launch pads?

  38. Forget about Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about sending (wo)men to mars for a while
    and there is enough money for both moons and much more.

  39. Europa Hands Down by hackus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not really a REAL question I hope.

    Hands down, the place to go is Europa.

    Titan's chemistry is not interesting, when it comes to life.

    Europa will have vast energy sources, liquid water, probably at ranges of Titan to superheated on the ocean floor.

    The curvature of space around Jupitor will stretch the moon as it orbits the planet, heating it to a decent temperature.

    I find it AMAZING that the curvature of space time, is in itself responsible for the energy production.

    It is as close to a perpetual motion engine as you will get!

    Titan would be a great place to study exochemsistry, but to study life? Not as good as Europa.

    Besides Arthur C Clarke has a great track record going for predictions. :-)

    Go Europa!! W00t! Life or BUST!

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  40. Quit whining by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    All of you people who favor manned space exploration should clearly see why we can't do both. If we didn't waste so much money on the low earth orbit ferris wheel to "research the effects of weightlessness/space-travel on the human body" and other scientifically worthless bullshit, we would be able to do both. Cue the "If Christopher Columbus..." and "It's our destiny to leave earth..." moronic fairy tales.

    1. Re:Quit whining by djp928 · · Score: 1

      You forgot: "The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program." -- Larry Niven.

    2. Re:Quit whining by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      Let's assume they did have a space program. Would they have become extinct? Yes:
      • They would have squandered most of their resources on sending a few dozen dinos to lower earth orbit many many times.
      • They would have sent a few to the moon. They'd die.
      • They would have sent a few to Mars. They'd die.
      • They would have sent a few further away. They'd die.

      Doesn't look good so far. At least I didn't get modded down to Troll right off the bat.

  41. send probes to both, ASAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they send probes to both, ASAP.