Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Give NASA Planetary Marching Orders
coondoggie writes "The community and team of scientists that help NASA prioritize space missions has come out with its exploration recommendations for the next decade: get to Mars, explore one of Jupiter's moons and study Uranus. From the report: 'The gas giants Jupiter and Saturn have been extensively studied by the Galileo and Cassini missions, respectively. But Uranus and Neptune represent a wholly distinct class of planet. While Jupiter and Saturn are made mostly of hydrogen, Uranus and Neptune have much smaller hydrogen envelopes. The bulk composition of these planets is dominated instead by heavier elements; oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur are the likely candidates. What little we know about the internal structure and composition of these "ice giant" planets comes from the brief flybys of Voyager 2. So the ice giants are one of the great remaining unknowns in the solar system: the only class of planet that has never been explored in detail.'"
[...] explore one of Jupiter's moons and study Uranus.
Am i the only immature one to giggle at the request for them to study uranus
get your anus to mars...
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Look, these orbiters and probes (yes to Uranus) are projected to cost in multiple billions EACH. As much as I love space exploration and think NASA's done a bang-up job (in their unmanned program at least), these planetary bodies aren't going anywhere and do not directly address any pressing problems (climate change is the one exception but for that we should be looking at the rocky terrestrial like inner planets like Venus and Mars and not the gas giants).
So why not put these programs on the slow track for a little while and spend a Billion developing some really good deep space propulsion systems? Finish VASIMIR, improve ion engines, develop high power nuclear reactors (not just wimpy RTGs), try laser beaming, solar sails or even magnetic bubbles! Anyway, if you can get a propulsion system that's 10x more efficient than our current chemical rockets you could send much more massive payloads quicker! This would substantially reduce the launch cost since it would "only" cost 10s of thousands of dollars to send a kg instead of 100s of thousands to the outer planets. This in turn would allow designers much more flexibilty to reduce cost/increase perfornance since they wouldn't be under such pressure to reduce weight. And by reducing or eliminating the need for time-consuming gravitational assists (6 years to Mercury!), it would likewise reduce support costs as well as increase science return (instruments won't be decades obsolete on arrival).
- The distance to the outer planets is great enough that it makes me think of some science fiction stories (like Arthur C. Clarke's "The Songs of Distant Earth"), where newly developed technology could allow spacecraft launched later to overtake the earlier more primitive ships. While the travel times here will be measured in years or decades not centuries or millennia it still gives me pause. Unless there is some extremely fortuituous occurrence like the planetary alignment that made the Grand Tour possible (Pioneer, Voyager) it is better to wait AS LONG AS you spend the time (and money) making things stronger, faster, better, cheaper.
(For some of these reasons, I support Obama's focus on developing new technologies before trying for the Moon (again) or Mars. We know we can do it, the question is can we do it affordably enough to SUSTAIN a manned presence?)
Let's become a spacefaring civilization!
"Get your ass to Mars!"
Get Uranus to Mars!
he's like some kind of boot-licking lap-dog/suckytoad for unprecedented evile, butt, if total recall serves, he also helped write the plan to 'light 'em up' w/dick&paul etc.... quite a read, & it's non-fiction, which we don't see much of lately. why waste more time? scared? they sure are.
Scientists Give NASA Planetary Marching Orders
Seriously? Did they provide the budget as well?
Last time I heard about it, the scientists were having troubles themselves with a bunch of politicians promoting fact-free science... unless the said politicians will do nothing to adjust the law of gravitation, I don't see how NASA can mars to march and up Uranus (errrr.. whatever...) ... Newton, "the founding father", wrote that law pretty harsh... without relaxing it the gravitation well is deep enough to require some non-trivial budget.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
We need to figure out what it takes to colonize the Moon. We need to build the infrastructure that can keep us there and commercialize the exploitation of the Moon and nearby asteroids. We have almost all of the materials and the technology to build a working Lunar space elevator now. Once we have that, getting supplies and raw materials on and off the Lunar surface is practically free.
There are so many great reasons for tackling the Moon first as we venture out into space.
To me, going to Mars or Uranus with probes vs going to the Moon means that we don't want to build up the technology and infrastructure to become a space faring species. It says that we're more interested in satisfying a few scientific curiosities rather than figuring out how to live away from the Earth's surface.
I find their list to be extremely disappointing. I was hoping to see mankind take its first real steps toward the stars in my lifetime. Ah well...
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
the 'audience', (electronically) glued to their seats. let his, & in turn our? will be done, they chant...... eot
could only be bad si-fi nonsense?
Sorry dude, your Dragon Droppings are too damn expensive.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Captain, set your course for Alderan...
He said, "study ur anus", Beavis! He heh hehehee he
Plain old sigh.
The Mars missions have been slashed which is fairly scandalous. There should be a sample-return mission and more rovers; Mars is one of the best places to look for nascent life outside of Earth. The amount that the Administration spent on Obama's visit to India and SE Asia could have funded a sample return mission.
All this talk of studying Uranus and touching the Moon is pointless. We should be aiming to reach-around at a big black hole.
Sorry, we're going to spend money on other things.
First post, but modded down as "redundant"?
Reality must be on the blink again.*
[*] Douglas Adams,iirc.
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Doesn't the TSA already have a big lead in "study[ing] Uranus"?
Hope is the currency of fools
All this talk about Uranus is wasted gas. And the Moon has already streaked our skies. What we need is to reach-around a big black hole. And avoid the Crab Nebula.
According to Nation of Islams Scientology-like belief system, There are spaceships on the dark side of the moon waiting to take all the negras home. I just wanna know what's the damn wait and how can I facilitate lift off?
second post, we don't try as hard
third post, we don't try at all
fourth...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Can't they study uranus instead? :P
I've heard that there's a giant spot on Uranus. This definitely warrants detailed study.
Well, what would you consider a fair price?
Good thing forward-looking Obama is in office now and has Returned Science To Its Rightful Place. Cutting space funding and all that. Not like that mongoloid Bush, who wanted to, what, go to the moon? What a moron.
Isn't it about time we committed to a plan to install at least one orbiting observatory satellite for each of the major bodies within our solar system? If we aren't ready to commit to further manned missions, then lets get our remote eyes and ears out there on a permanent basis, rather than the once-in-a-generation flyby mission.
Ok everyone, this is the Decadal Survey of PLANETARY SCIENCE. Read the report and the statement of task provided to them (not written by them!) and you see that human spaceflight has very little to do with this particular report. Your opinions are fine, but don't criticize the report for something it isn't. The Space Studies Board has several other decadal surveys addressing different branches of space science, this is just one of them. Also, for those wondering about budget considerations, look at Appendix C and E. Compared to other NASA activities planetary science missions provide A LOT of science and inspirational value for the money.
"While Jupiter and Saturn are made mostly of hydrogen, Uranus and Neptune have much smaller hydrogen envelopes"
Smaller or not, somebody is going to have to stick a probe in Uranus.
My choice would be Pluto, just to spite the rotten bastards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Sounds like they are assuming Uranus and Neptune are similar enough, calling them both "ice giants", that we'll learn a lot about both by studying one of them. We'll want to study both, eventually, of course. In the meantime, why Uranus first?
The sunlight is a little brighter, and it's a little closer and so we can get a probe there sooner, cheaper, and with less fuel used. And Uranus has one characteristic that sets it apart from all the other planets-- it's tilted so far over that it is on its side. So perhaps that makes it more interesting.
But Neptune's largest moon is much more massive than Uranus' largest. Cassini used Titan's gravity to visit places in the Saturn system. Titan is massive enough to make that easy. Uranus' moons may be too small to make that trick workable, while Triton may be big enough. We'd also like to study the sort of extreme seasonal changes Uranus' tilt produces. To do that we'd want to view at least one entire Uranian year, which is 84 Earth years. But how? Multiple probes? Or increase the longevity of our current probes? Or we settle for a briefer view. If we do, I'd suppose we'd rather see Uranus nearer a solstice than an equinox. If so, then right now the timing may or may not be the best. The next solstice is in 2028. That's good for a leisurely preparation of 2 to 5 years to launch followed by a route of 6 or 8 so years for a probe that hopefully will last another 10 years after the trip. It's not so good if we can move faster, and want to. Also, as Neptune's year is even longer-- 164 Earth years, we may prefer to start on Neptune sooner as we will be able to catch up faster on the faster orbiting Uranus.
Seems like if the extra distance and time doesn't make it too costly, Neptune would be a better first choice.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
How about NASA figure out how to get to _orbit_ first? They've been fucking that part up for the past 30 years, and I don't understand why it needs to be pointed out to them that it is the first and most critical step to getting anywhere else.
Dyolf Knip
One perhaps slightly over scrap metal value?
To be serious though, I am afraid I was merely expressing a sentiment (as in 'too damn expensive for me'). I still think the $100+ series are -objectively now- a bit overpriced. I would suggest you try to expand to chain mails, and ladies purses (tricky, but you'll be rich if you manage to coat the inside somehow to guard their precious ladystuff)
Good idea though, best of luck!
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
that is all
at the rate we're going, the wiser investment would be to start terraforming Mars...in whatever ways we can afford.
like America will be around forever. I mean how long can America last being a "great" nation. How much longer do you think your own country will last? Forever? As long as the frog?
Why is it always Mars this, Mars that?
In every way, shape, and form, Venus is a better target to explore than Mars.
It is closer to us, it has a thicker atmosphere that allows actual sizable payloads to be landed Unlike Mars, it is closer to the sun with more usable solar energy, it has a habitable zone in its upper atmosphere that is the most earth-like environment within our solar system, it has nearly the same gravity as Earth, and there is SO MUCH we still don't know about Venus.
We could colonize Venus with simple aerostat habitats, essentially floating sky cities or zeppelins, which remain bouyant in the upper venereal atmosphere at Earth-normal pressure and temperature, with said habitats creating water, oxygen, lifting gas, and rocket fuel solely out of the H2SO4 in the atmosphere and power from the sun. We could use the increased solar flux to power orbital factories, smelters, and foundries, while putting mineral-rich asteroids into orbit around Venus for mining - a location where a mistake and planetary impact won't end humanity. We could even Terraform, in a realistic timeframe the upper atmosphere to something that's breathable to humans, and then start seeding it with Earth-based life.
On top of that we can research an environment where a run-away global warming effect has taken place and see how that compares to Earth, and explore an incredibly alien surface with robots, possibly even performing tele-mining operations for materials and resources.
Anything we could do on Mars, we can do on Venus better.
First post, but modded down as "redundant"?
Reality must be on the blink again.*
[*] Douglas Adams,iirc.
Why? If the first post contributes nothing to the topic being discussed, it is indeed redundant i.e. superfluous to requirements
The definition of "redundant" is not just the engineering one of "replicating something as backup in case the original fails"
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it