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.'"

16 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:somebody just has to say this by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

  2. Develop spacefaring technology first by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see two problems here.

      Why cut back space programs instead of, say, military spending or bank bailouts? A fraction of either would put humans on Mars and probes on Jovian moons, and a little more cutbacks we'll have us solving climate change as well..

      Also, there will always be a promising new propulsion system on the horizon. When you've built a VASIMIR engine, there will be antimatter propulsion, and then some space-bending engine, and then an Infinite Improbability Drive. When do you stop tinkering and simply get your ass to Mars?

    2. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      from what i read on wikipedia, temperaturs vary between 100k and 700k, with the 100k representing the permanently dark side of the planet and the more common temperatures in the non-dark regions being around 400-500 K
      Temperature wise, i would much prefer Mars, which is (once again, according to wikipedia) -85 (~200K) to -5 (268K) degrees centigrade
      Both pretty much SUCK in terms of atmosphere, and mercury would win in terms of available (solar) energy, but i'd much rather bring some extra solar panels to mars (or a nuclear reactor..) then risk being boiled on mercury.

      I agree though that we need to explore those rocks out there, titan and europa are interesting indeed, but as a first off-world settlement, i would think mars is a better place to start then mercury

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    3. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If ice is found at one pole of Mercury a mission could land there and use local water. Temperatures at the pole would not be too bad. Remember those are surface temperatures. They will affect gear left out in the sun, but the real problem will be solar heat soaked up by pressure suits and habitats. If you make them highly reflective your main heat problem will be from people and equipment inside. Apollo used open circuit cooling by sublimating ice. A mercury mission could work the same way.

      The slow rotation of Mercury means that astronauts could explore the whole planet by following the terminator. Each traverse would start at one pole, cross the other and finish at the starting point.

      The problem with Mars is that pressure suits would have to use a lot of energy keeping their occupants warm. Batteries have limited capacity so EVAs will have to be short. I reckon that gear used on Mercury could be directly derived from gear used on the moon.

    4. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could not agree more.
      It's so sad to see that the US just cannot reduce its main costs (defense, banks), and then endlessly fights over the crumbs that are left.
      But under the Patriot act it's probably not allowed to suggest that spending more money on warfare than all other countries combined is a bad thing?

      cheers,
      A peaceloving cheese-eating suddender monkey

    5. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i you set up your martian base somewhere in the -5 region, i reckon heating would hardly be needed. When it is minus 5 (centigrade) i can stay outside without much trouble in a pair of jeans and a good winter coat, and most of the heat loss then is from wind/air cooling, which would not be that big of a factor at 0.01 Bar atmospheric pressure. Hell, given that us meatbags produce a good amount of heat moving around, you could have bigger cooling needs then heating in those conditions.

      As for the living space, humans need about 20 degrees centigrade to be comfortable, and while heating a place to 25 degrees above ambient isnt exactly a low energy demand, it seems more feasable then dealing with cooling it to ambient -100 or so, especially if you would like to spend longer times on site. Hell, give everyone a good thick sweater and lower the hab temperature to 10 degrees and you just eliminated half your heating bill.

      You might be right about using apollo tech on mercury, and i would LOVE to see that mission go through (hell, if nasa gets going on a new moon mission, mercury can be done five years after the first second moon landing), but starting from scratch, the martian environment seems much easier to live in for us meatbags

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    6. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no such thing as 100% reflective. and if you do achieve that, dirt will accumulate and transfer heat via conduction. Any person in a suit standing on the surface of mercury that is in the light will cook lie they were in a rotisserie even wrapped in 100% effective mirrors. Its surface ranges in temperature from -270F to 800F (-168C to 427C) and it's day is insanely long, the poles do not matter. you need to be in a deep crater out of the sunlight. Here's another problem, the sun takes up much of the sky, it's not that tiny bright disk in the sky like we have here, you have a giant bright as hell 50% of the sky ball of fire. you are also within the sun's magnetosphere so good luck with electronics. How do you design solar panels that can not fry in that environment? Actually you do it differently, large black panels with thermocouples. use the temperature difference between light and dark.

      Mariner 10 was designed for the high heat by giving it a high temperature heat shield to shadow the craft from the sun, it also had very hardened electronics and still had problems. The on-board computer experienced unscheduled resets occasionally, they had to reconfigure the thing several times to salvage the spacecraft. The attitude control systems also flaked out and used up a bulk of the fuel on-board. Operating that close to a star is highly difficult and dangerous even for robotic missions.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by c0lo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mars may not be the best place for humans to go. Mercury for example looks positively inviting in comparison to Mars.

      My apologies to throw in some facts on to your dreams, but I wouldn't call Mercury "more inviting".
      Atmosphere - 1 nanoPascal (blown away by solar wind), a magnetic field at 1% the terrestrial one => very little protection against hard radiation With an eccetric orbit, the Sun's radiation intensity is between 4.59 and 10.61 times the level on the Earth orbit (on the surface of Mercury, the Sun looks on average almost three times as big as it does from Earth).

      Not having a significant atmosphere, there are no chances for aero-breaking. The delta-v between the orbital-speed is 18 km/s that need to be lost for reaching a transfer orbit. Even more, a space vehicle will fall into the Sun's gravitational well, requiring another huge delta-v to compensate if you want to avoid a crash-landing - a trip alone (not even landing) to Mercury requires more rocket fuel than to escape the solar system. Solar-sails you say? Heck, how long can one afford to keep a maned space vehicle in a radiation 5-10 times more virulent than on Earth orbit. Bigger shields you say? Errr.... more rocket fuel to escape the Earth gravitation, I ask?

      Heck, even if I would be to accept the idea of Mercury being more inviting, I wonder if we currently afford to give course to the invitation. Cost per kilogram of dead matter transported to:
      1. the surface of Mars - US$309,000
      2. a fly-by followed by orbiting Mercury (but not landing on it) - US$878,000 (Messenger mission cost/spacecraft mass).

      BTW - the orbital insertion of the Messenger spacecraft around Mercury is expected in about 8 days from now (on March 17, 2011 after 6.5 years from its launch) - fingers crossed.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with Mars is that pressure suits would have to use a lot of energy keeping their occupants warm.

      No. Keep in mind that the occupants even when resting are 75 W heaters. Keeping the occupants cool is the real problem.

    9. Re:Develop spacefaring technology first by Enigma23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although the defense spending is huge, it's still less than that for health care.

      I'd far rather see a country spent more money on healthcare than on killing people. If the US Government really wants to save money, they should build less aircraft carriers - the incoming Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, will cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion each - nearly $100 billion in total for a like-for-like replacement of the eleven Nimitz and Enterprise class carriers in active service.

      By comparison, the UK spends two and a half times as much on Health as it does on Defence.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
  3. Maybe they need to hear it from Arnold by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Get your ass to Mars!"

  4. What happened to going to our Moon? by osgeek · · Score: 3

    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...

    1. Re:What happened to going to our Moon? by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Colonizing the Moon is an engineering task. We already know all the science we need. It's a vacuum, it has radiation, it has commonly used minerals.

      We don't need new scientific knowledge to solve that problem. We need engineering knowledge to solve that problem, and while it might be difficult to realize, you cannot just reassign astrophysicists to solve your plumbing problems.

    2. Re:What happened to going to our Moon? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Funny

      I read in a book somewhere it was a harsh mistress, I just can't seem to remember the title.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    3. Re:What happened to going to our Moon? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      Developing technology and infrastructure is a big part of what NASA is focusing on, while letting commercial ventures focus on lowering cost to LEO. It's why I'm more enthusiastic than ever in my life about our prospects for going to the moon and staying there.

      This report is not about that. This report is about -- and only about -- satisfying the scientific curiosities that is the other big part of what NASA is about. So of course it doesn't mention colonizing the moon.

      So do not create, nor take this list to imply, a false dichotomy between human exploration of near-earth, and probe-based exploration of the rest of the solar system.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are