NASA May Send Landers To Europa In 2020

wisebabo writes "So here's a proposal by NASA to send landers to Europa to look for life. They are sending two landers because of the risks in landing on Europa. They got that right! First is the 500 million mile distance from the Sun, which will probably necessitate RTGs (Juno uses solar panels, but they are huge) and will cause at least an hour of lag time for communications. Then there is the intense gravitational field of Jupiter, which will require a lot of fuel to get into Jovian and then Europan orbit. (It's equivalent to traveling amongst the inner planets!) The radiation in space around Jupiter is tremendous, so the spacecraft may need to be 'armored' like Juno. Landing on Europa is going to be crazy; there aren't any hi-res maps of the landing areas (unlike Mars) and even if there were, the geography of Europa might change due to the shifting ice. Since there is no atmosphere, it'll be rockets down all the way; very expensive in terms of fuel — like landing on the Moon. Finally, who knows what the surface is like; is it a powder, rock hard, crumbly or slippery? In a couple respects, looking for life on Titan (where we've already landed one simple probe) would be a lot easier: dense atmosphere, no radiation, radar mapped from space, knowledge of surface). If only we could do both!"

Comments

NASA in 2020?

[ikedasquid]

With all the rabid budget cutting going on, we'll be lucky if NASA is still around in 2020.

Re:NASA in 2020?

[surfdaddy]

NASA's existence and funding is practically guaranteed because the US government and military will never allow other countries to exceed the US space capabilities without a fight. Space is the ultimate high ground. The original moon landings were directly related to the US - USSR competition for space and technological advancements. Budgets can always be enlarged if necessary. As it is most countries in the world are still trying to develop tech the US had in the 60's.NASA is still a going concern although some people will never give them any credit unless they produce a warp drive.

Uhhh....no way.

What countries, TODAY, can launch men into space? Answer: China and Russia.

Does NASA have a clear path forward to manned spaceflight? Answer: No - it's many years down the line, if ever.

OK, how about commercial space. Isn't NASA funding commercial space programs? Answer: Yes, but the funding has been dropping rapidly, as powerful lobbying interests (re: Boeing, other established Aerospace players) want to preserve their big cash cows. So wildly innovative companies like SpaceX are in danger of losing funding, all in the name of crony capitalism.

It's all pretty damn depressing if you ask me. I wish you were correct, but you're not.

hardware aint the least of it

[decora]

the massive number of pointless military bases, oceans of bureaucracy, contractors that chage twice as much to do the same work as govt employees, contractors with corrupt links to govt leaders who decide who gets the money, pointless projects that spend billions and are cancelled halfway through planning stages.

the US military is essentially one gigantic social welfare program.

the only way to get a space program going is to spread the production out to various places, so that congress can suckle the fat teat of mother federal government and bring that bacon home to their districts.

Re:nanobots

[Grishnakh]

it seems to me that dumping thousands of nanobots across the planet would be easier than relying on one big lander to safely and smoothly land on an unseen location.

Yes, exactly. Not only that, but instead of burning so much fuel to get into Europa orbit and land on the surface due to the high gravity in the Jovian system and the lack of atmosphere on Europa, it would make a lot more sense to use antigravity engines, or better yet simply teleport probes to the surface. Why don't we do that?