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.'"

12 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  2. 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.

  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: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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.