Discovery Increases Odds of Life On Europa

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discovery Increases Odds of Life On Europa

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 5, 2013 @01:01PM from the new-life-and-new-civilizations dept.

tetrahedrassface writes "Observations of spectral emissions from the surface of Europa using state of the art ground based telescopes here on Earth have lent data that indicate the surface of the Jovian moon is linked with the vast ocean below. The observations carried out by Caltech's Mike Brown and JPL's Kevin Hand show that water is making it from the ocean below all the way up to the surface of the moon. In their study (PDF) they noticed a dip in the emission bands around lower latitudes of the moon, and quickly honed in on what they were seeing. The mineral of interest is epsomite, a magnesium sulfate compound that can only come from the ocean below. From the article: 'Magnesium should not be on the surface of Europa unless it's coming from the ocean,' Brown says. 'So that means ocean water gets onto the surface, and stuff on the surface presumably gets into the ocean water.' Not only does this mean the ocean and surface are dynamically interacting, but it also means that there may be more energy in the ocean than previously thought. Another finding is that the ocean below the icy surface of Europa is basically very similar to an ocean on Earth, giving the neglected and premier solar body for life past Earth another compelling reason for being explored."

164 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:06 · Score: 0

Hydrothermal vents, maybe?
1. Re:Hmm by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 13:11 · Score: 2
  
  Or maybe just cracks in the ice caused by tidal changes. Then water down below would sublimate. rise to the surface. and freeze. Maybe the vapour would carry some metals with it. Magnesium is a good construction material BTW.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Hmm by Mystakaphoros · 2013-03-05 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
3. Re:Hmm by icebike · 2013-03-05 14:34 · Score: 2
  
  Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
  Which is interesting because enough gravitational heating of the moon's core to keep an ocean liquid suggests the possibility of life even in the absence of sunlight, just as is found in some deep oceans on earth. I suppose its possible for there to be enough infrared near thermal vents, but by and large, you would expect any putative life to have evolved completely without any form of photoreceptors, let alone eyes.
  Some clever minds are probably already at work conceptualizing payload packages to investigate these cracks for an under-ice rover.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:Hmm by m0n0RAIL · 2013-03-05 15:24 · Score: 2
  
  An under-ice rover isn't likely in the near future, as estimates of the ice thickness range from 30km to at least a few kilometers.
  
  --
  cokane.com
5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 21:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, I have a distinct recollection of how some Nasa engineer had a probe design in mind that would work. It would melt itself through several kilometers of ice in a few months and leave a cable behind connecting it to a transmitter on the surface. I don't think it's too hard for engineers that are capable of constructing such a probe to stick a couple of propellers on it for diving. Although, I don't know about appropriate precautions to prevent it from ending up as an appetizer for some Europian super sharks. Maybe mirrors to reflect lasers..?
6. Re:Hmm by durrr · 2013-03-05 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Various impact objects could be candidates too.
7. Re:Hmm by invid · 2013-03-06 01:37 · Score: 2
  
  If there is life in the ocean under the ice and if there are interactions with the surface then it could be possible to find evidence of life from the chemical composition of the surface ice in selected areas. We should send an orbiting probe to determine the most likely spots and then send a lander.
  While I would love for NASA to send a submarine, just trying to imagine the engineering effort makes my head spin. It's possible but would cost tens of billions and the chances for failure for something that complex is very high. Not very likely to get the green light with current budgets.
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
8. Re:Hmm by geekoid · 2013-03-06 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why couldn't we figure out a way to use one of the crack that is spewing water out?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
9. Re:Hmm by netsentry · 2013-03-07 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  An under-ice rover isn't likely in the near future, as estimates of the ice thickness range from 30km to at least a few kilometers.
  But...we know that the outer crust of Europa is elastic because of the gravitational forces from Jupiter. According to http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~fnimmo/website/paper27.pdf there is likely to be areas during certain tidal forms that are much thinner than that and some that are thicker. As we study it further I am sure smarter people than myself will work out math to make this feasible. Assuming certain countries' space programs are given a budget and they can afford to spend a little less on fighter jets and bombs, that is.
10. Re:Hmm by peawormsworth · 2013-03-07 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  The best chance of further exploration is if scientist predict not only life, but also, that it is delicious.
11. Re:Hmm by RockDoctor · 2013-03-09 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  What's the vapour pressure of magnesium sulphate at about 50 K? Massively lower than the vapour pressure of water at the same temperature.
  I don't think that you meant "sublimate" ; or "sublimate" doesn't mean what you think it means.
  Simple fluid flow, followed by evaporation to leave the salts behind is a quite adequate mechanism.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
12. Re:Hmm by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-11 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Warm water exposed to vacuum will sublimate. The magnesium may be transported physically, just carried along with a stream of vapour.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Misread the title by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:07 · Score: 1, Funny

At first glance I read the title as "Discovery Increases Odds of Life In Europe".
1. Re:Misread the title by Penguinisto · 2013-03-05 13:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Sadly, so did I, thinking that they finally left Leeds and discovered the existence of Amsterdam.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:Misread the title by rubycodez · 2013-03-05 13:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I was more disturbed by the mention of "lent data" from ground based telescopes, which sounds like certain kinds of data collection were given up until Easter.
3. Re:Misread the title by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-03-05 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you Discover life somewhere aren't the odds pretty much infinite?
4. Re:Misread the title by PPH · 2013-03-05 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  So, there's life. But Europa's economy is shot to hell.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:Misread the title by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  1 != infinity
6. Re:Misread the title by darkHanzz · 2013-03-05 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  no, they are 1.
7. Re:Misread the title by daem0n1x · 2013-03-05 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  At first glance I read the title as "Discovery Increases Odds of Life In Europe".
  There's life here, but won't be for long.
8. Re:Misread the title by OpenSourced · 2013-03-05 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life.
  
  --
  Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
9. Re:Misread the title by RaceProUK · 2013-03-06 00:56 · Score: 2
  
  Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life. Intelligence yet to be confirmed.
  FTFY
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
10. Re:Misread the title by quenda · 2013-03-06 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they'd brought the Space Shuttle orbiter out of retirement. Maybe crash it down there with a lot of seeds.
11. Re:Misread the title by CanEHdian · 2013-03-06 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life. Intelligence yet to be confirmed.
  FTFY
  Life and intelligence were confirmed July 4th, 2012
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
12. Re:Misread the title by rubycodez · 2013-03-06 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  we've already discovered life in this universe, probability is 100%
language issues? by hb253 · 2013-03-05 13:09 · Score: 1

"lent data"???
"honed in"????

--
Self awareness - try it!
1. Re:language issues? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-03-05 13:34 · Score: 2
  
  "lent data"??? "honed in"????
  Not sure what's up with "lent data". (Typo of "sent data"? Odd translation of an idiom from a non-English language?)
  I've heard the "honed in" misusage a lot. It seems to be a Mondegreen> from "homed in" (like a homing pigeon.)
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
2. Re:language issues? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-03-05 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  The Europans are fasting and observing penitence.
3. Re:language issues? by icebike · 2013-03-05 14:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "lent data"??? "honed in"????
  Not sure what's up with "lent data". (Typo of "sent data"? Odd translation of an idiom from a non-English language?)
  I've heard the "honed in" misusage a lot. It seems to be a Mondegreen> from "homed in" (like a homing pigeon.)
  Lent is the past tense of lend. Data from one discovery was lent to a totally different theory.
  Honed in is fairly common usage when working toward a goal.
  The so called "translation" is from a language called English, with which it appears you are only tangentially acquainted.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:language issues? by Cimexus · 2013-03-05 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Honed in" may be in common usage but that doesn't make it correct.
  One can hone a blade. In the same sense, one can hone their skills (in the sense of sharpening or improving them). However one cannot 'hone in' on something. It's a mishearing of "home in" (to zero in on/zoom in on/narrow a wider field down to) - a common one to be sure, but mistaken nonetheless.
  Nothing wrong with 'lent' though, as you say.
5. Re:language issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  The so called "translation" is from a language called English, with which it appears you are only tangentially acquainted.
  For most of us English is the odd secondary language in which API documentations are written. A bit like Latin in middle ages.
6. Re:language issues? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-03-05 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  "giving the neglected and premier solar body for life past Earth another compelling reason for being explored" was rather tortutous to parse as well.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
7. Re:language issues? by negablade · 2013-03-05 20:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  'Hone' means to focus in or to work towards a specific goal, and is listed in reputable print dictionaries (i.e. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in). Honed in is the past tense of hone in. It is true that some people think it is wrong, and that opinion is open to debate, as it should be for any living language. But the deciding factor is whether the intent of the phase is understood by the majority of readers. Since it is in common use, it follows that it has become accepted phraseology.
8. Re:language issues? by CanEHdian · 2013-03-06 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Origin of HONE IN
  alteration of home in
  First Known Use: 1965
  So in the 2048 we will be able to look up "Interweb" as a fully accepted noun (but people will be too busy defending themselves against wave after wave of evil robots to care).
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
9. Re:language issues? by CanEHdian · 2013-03-06 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  ^ That should read "the 2048 edition"
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
10. Re:language issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  From the book Common Errors in English Usage:
  http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/hone.html
  Home in, not hone in.
11. Re:language issues? by hb253 · 2013-03-06 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, "hone" does not mean to focus. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else needs to follow.
  I say "asswipe" now means "boss". You may proceed with my suggestion for evolution of the English language.
  
  --
  Self awareness - try it!
12. Re:language issues? by gstoddart · 2013-03-06 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Honed in" may be in common usage but that doesn't make it correct.
  And your assertion doesn't make it incorrect either.
  It has been in use for quite some time.
  Language evolves, you're going to have to learn to deal with that. Hone in has been in use for literally decades.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:language issues? by Cimexus · 2013-03-06 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Honed in is not the past tense of hone in, because neither 'honed in' or 'hone in' actually exists. They are mishearings of 'home in' and 'homed in' respectively.
  Also I'm not sure 'Merriam-Webster' and 'reputable' belong in the same sentence? Maybe it's recognised as an authority in America (I'm honestly not sure) but it's considered a joke anywhere else. A genuinely new word in common use should be added to a dictionary, yes, but in this case, they seem to be ignoring the fact that it's not a new word, it's merely a mishearing of something else. The only reason for it being in "common use" is that it sounds so similar to the actual word/phrase concerned.
14. Re:language issues? by Cimexus · 2013-03-06 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Language does indeed evolve. A genuinely new word that reaches a given level of common use should be added to a dictionary, yes. But in this case, it's not a new word, it's merely a mishearing of something else. The only reason for it being in "common use" is that it sounds so similar to the actual word/phrase concerned. It would never have happened if 'hone' and 'home' didn't sound so similar to begin with. The 'evolution' of language in this case is not due to some genuine need to add meaning or increase descriptiveness or make communication more efficient or effective. It's just a mistake that propagated.
  'Hone in' might have been in use for literally decades where you are, though I've only seen it start popping up relatively recently around here). The OED (which I think we can safely say is generally considered the most authoritative English dictionary out there, if there is such a thing) describes the usage as an apparent alteration of “to home in.” It traces the alteration to confusion caused by the somewhat similar meanings of the verbs “home” (to be guided to an objective) and “hone” (to refine a skill). It notes references for “to hone in” going back more than four decades - but these appear to be almost all American references. I'm Australian, not American, but I can tell you any proof reader would NOT allow you to use 'hone in' here (or, I suspect, in the UK/NZ ... maybe in Canada due to its greater exposure to American English?)
15. Re:language issues? by Cimexus · 2013-03-06 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Replying to own post here, apologies. But wanted to add something. I see this as analogous to another error you often see: 'all intensive purposes' being used where 'all intents and purposes' is meant. This is basically the same kind of situation:
  - Both are similar sounding;
  - Both are valid, grammatical English in their own right, but mean completely different things;
  - The misuse results from a mishearing, which then gets repeated and propagated;
  - Both are seen quite regularly, enough to say that they are in common usage
  I would argue that if you accept 'hone/honed in' as a valid evolution, then you also have to accept 'intensive purposes', via the same reasoning. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that argued that 'intensive purposes' was acceptable...
Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Press2ToContinue · 2013-03-05 13:09 · Score: 3, Informative

and a series of flybys began in the 1970s. Pioneer 10 and 11 visited Jupiter in 1973 and 1974 respectively.
Two Voyager probes traveled through the Jovian system in 1979 providing more detailed images of Europa's icy surface. The images caused many scientists to speculate about the possibility of a liquid ocean underneath.
Starting in 1995, the Galileo probe began a Jupiter orbiting mission that lasted for eight years, until 2003, and provided the most detailed examination of the Galilean moons to date. It included, Galileo Europa Mission and Galileo Millennium Mission, with numerous close flybys of Europa.
Neglected indeed.
Not.
(Paraphrased from Wikipedia)

--
Sent from my ENIAC
1. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by war4peace · 2013-03-05 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  Depends what you compare with. Justin Bieber certainly gets more attention... an unfortunate thing, really.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
2. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by tetrahedrassface · 2013-03-05 13:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's very neglected compared to what we've sent to Mars isn't it? Now we are floating *another* rover while the data for Europa continues to build up to the point that we really should go there in a two part mission. One would be a dedicated orbiter, and then a landing...
3. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 13:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land. Maybe the descent stage would be another 1000kg to get you from low orbit to the surface. Then that 2 tonne package has to be powered into the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Eurpoa. You are talking about a lot of fuel. Galileo just barely went into an elliptical orbit. In energy terms that is a long way from a landing. My rough guess is that the total mass of the vehicle would be 10 tonnes in low earth orbit. Maybe more.
  Maybe it could only be done with a proper fission reactor and ion drives.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by tetrahedrassface · 2013-03-05 13:39 · Score: 2
  
  Right, well the Planetary Society has proposed the JEO, Jupiter Europa Orbiter. That would be a great start to actually close enough to really see what's going on. Then we don't need or even have to land a super heavy rover on Europa. If we took data from the JEO and were smart about it, we could land a few very small probes to sample the surface of the ice where the upwellings occur.
  We have the capability to go there today, if we really wanted to. I guess it's just not politically expedient to go there, since Mars captures the interest of the population so well..... and that's a disappointing, because Europa or one of it's sister moons has water today.
  I hope I live long enough to see a landing.
5. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  You are overrating the difficulty. You can aerobrake with Jupiter to get you into a descent path for the moon using almost no fuel. If you ever wanted to leave the vicinity of Jupiter, you'd be kind of fucked (considering the 'ginormous' gravitational well), but it isn't especially hard getting there. And as far as an RTG, that is something we are going to have to get used to if we seriously want to start exploring the outer planets. That or nuclear reactors. And if we are serious about finding life on Europa, we aren't talking about a few ton probe--we are talking hundreds of tons so that we can drill or melt through the miles of ice to sample the ocean.
6. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 14:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can aerobrake with Jupiter to get you into a descent path for the moon using almost no fuel
  You are understating the difficulty. Aerobraking will leave you in a highly elliptical orbit with a significant velocity difference to Eurpoa where it crosses the orbit of Europa. It might be possible to circularise that orbit with slingshots among the moons, but that would take years. Also there is a significant hazard from meteors going so close to Jupiter, and an extreme radiation hazard.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
7. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by icebike · 2013-03-05 14:56 · Score: 3
  
  The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land.
  
  Meh! Details....
  The day before Curiosity landed the general opinion here among the Slashdot Rocket Scientists that it had ZERO chance for success. Too complicated. Too Rube Goldberg. Parachutes, Rockets, and Skycranes! Such foolishness. Stupid arrogant NASA/JPL about to get their comeuppance.
  Well...
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
8. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by kwerle · 2013-03-05 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Europa has slightly less gravity than our moon - more than 1/3 of mars. So I have to imagine it has no atmosphere to speak of. I would imagine that would make a Europa landing much more like a moon landing than the Mars landing. Of course Jupiter's gravity well is something to contend with - but at least you don't have to land there - just in the neighborhood. All in all, I imagine that a Europa landing would be easier than a Mars landing (assuming the surface is friendly, etc).
9. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by DigiShaman · 2013-03-05 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Falcon Heavy is rated for 53 metric tons LEO. Would that be enough?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
10. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Does Galileo and its aerobraking maneuvers around Jupiter mean anything to you? How about Cassini around Saturn (which has fucking rings!)?
  You can aerobrake on a gas giant, and it has been done repeatedly. And by doing this you can get your trajectory set up that you don't use an insane amount of propellant (for example, you encounter the moon at the end of your ellipse and let its gravity pull you in, at which point you expend propellant and land).
11. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 15:14 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah but in energy terms a landing on Europa is much harder because there is no atmosphere.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
12. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  No atmosphere so no parachutes. Its a powered descent, unless you want to try lithobraking. In the future that may be an option. Consider landing a sled on smooth ice at 2 km/s.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
13. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
14. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Chris+Burke · 2013-03-05 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. What I like about the MSL pessimism is that most people didn't realize that literally the only new parts of the landing procedure were the sky crane at the end, and aerodynamic flight before parachute deploy.
  It's like they think Spirit and Opportunity were just dropping onto Mars from orbit and some measely air bags absorbed all that energy.
  But that's how Mission to Mars showed it, so I guess that's legit!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
15. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by mooingyak · 2013-03-05 15:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So thats 1000kg...
  Nobody ever says Megagram, or Megameter either for that matter. I for one would like to see that become commonplace.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
16. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by icebike · 2013-03-05 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Bring more with you sir. You will need it.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
17. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Gavagai80 · 2013-03-05 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody has been able to drill 15km into Earth yet, so the technology to get that far into Europa is unfortunately far off.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
18. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but Europa is special. You aren't drilling through rock. Realistically, you could attach a nuclear reactor to melt through (like a hot rock in a block of ice) and have it bale out a transmitting wire from a spool as it descends. This shouldn't be beyond our technology today.
19. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by smellotron · 2013-03-05 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  We have the capability to go there today, if we really wanted to.
  
  I can't think about exploring Europa without getting that tingly sensation that I am being watched:
  
  ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT . . EUROPA . ATTEMPT NO .LANDING THERE
20. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So thats 1000kg...
  Nobody ever says Megagram, or Megameter either for that matter. I for one would like to see that become commonplace.
  I wouldn't count on that happening in the next couple of gigaseconds.
21. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by PedroV100 · 2013-03-05 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  rtg?... here--> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rtg
22. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Zeussy · 2013-03-05 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Aerodynamic flight wasn't all that new. That was based on what the Apollo command module did on reentry. The sky crane engines were based off the ones that landed the Viking landers.
  
  --
  Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
23. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!
  Here is what you need to do: send a separate flyby probe with nuclear weapons. Drop and detonate the nuclear weapons on the surface so that lots of gas is shot into space. Deploy a massive parachute and use this gas to slow down (the nuclear bombs will be clustered so that there isn't too much pressure and temperature to shred the parachute at any given point). Then use rockets near the surface.
24. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Zeussy · 2013-03-05 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  I can remember reading an article about how landing on mars was a bitch compared to the moon or earth. Earth has a descent amount of atmosphere, so you can rely on aero braking then parachute. On the moon you have no atmosphere so you can fire rocket engines in the direction your flying, and do a powered descent.
  
  Mars has the problem of so little atmosphere that aero braking barely slows you down to a speed where you can open a parachute and not have it ripped apart as you are still travelling at supersonic speeds. And the atmosphere is just thick enough to upset rocket engines firing into the oncoming stream/airflow so you can't do a powered descent.
  
  --
  Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
25. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  Also: Nuclear weapons create a nice hole to the 30 km thick ice!
  (We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill...)
26. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by camperdave · 2013-03-05 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Spirit and Opportunity were dropped from their "sky cranes" (yes, they had them too, but they weren't called sky cranes at the time) from several storeys up, and had to endure double digit G-forces as they bounced and rolled across the Martian surface. Spirit bounced 28 times and rolled nearly half a kilometer from its initial impact point before coming to a rest. Yes. If anything, Curiosity had it easy. It was placed ever so gently on the surface.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
27. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Except Europa is many times further away, in addition to the challenges of navigating through the asteroid belt. Landing there might also not be as easy, and we know way less about Europa (so little that what we don't know might have significant impact on the design). Also, a rover like that would need to be even more autonomous than Curiousity, which is a serious hurdle, especially when carrying tons of expensive research equipment.
28. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Does Galileo and its aerobraking maneuvers around Jupiter mean anything to you?
  Galileo did no aerobraking. Rockets only.
  
  you encounter the moon at the end of your ellipse and let its gravity pull you in
  The required precision seems almost impossible to achieve. Some of the mars probes used aerobraking to circularise their orbits but they crept up on the appropriate depth to use over many orbits. Aerobraking was not used to immediately stop at a moon. The deep gravitational field of Jupiter means that even small errors in position will be too great to be corrected with rockets.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
29. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-03-06 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not that unreasonable if we had decent surface maps - which is really why we need an orbiter.
30. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-03-06 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  We navigate through the asteroid belt every time we go to Mars. The asteroid belt is a not a dense field of rock. The chances of a probe running into an asteroid are estimated at being 1 in a billion.
31. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Saturn (which has fucking rings!)?
  How do you use the fucking rings? Do they have any benefit over a standard fucking harness?
32. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  the asteroid belt is between mars and jupiter...not between earth and mars.
  i agree however that there is relatively small chance of actually hitting an asteroid.
33. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Zeromous · 2013-03-06 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Europa has a slight oxygen atmosphere. It may be relatively lightweight as far as atmosphere, but let's be precise and say, Europa actually has one.
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
34. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by GameboyRMH · 2013-03-06 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  We've found life! WE'VE FOUND ALIEN LIFE! Look at those dead bastards...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
35. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  so 60 years or so?
36. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Chris+Burke · 2013-03-06 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Spirit and Opportunity were dropped from their "sky cranes" (yes, they had them too, but they weren't called sky cranes at the time) from several storeys up,
  
  They had a rocket-powered descent stage, but it wasn't a "sky crane" because it didn't lower them on a cable, ala a crane, thus why it wasn't called one.
  
  Yes. If anything, Curiosity had it easy. It was placed ever so gently on the surface.
  Easier on the rover by design/necessity, though more complicated for the EDL team. Not ridiculously so like everyone thought, but definitely a source of complication and stress.
  I didn't realize it when I was watching the EDL stream live, but later learned that they had agreed that, largely due to the public watching, they had to be careful how they called out the steps of the landing. Specifically they said "TD nominal" when telemetry said the wheels were on the ground rather than "Touch Down" because they didn't want to get the public excited when the next thing telemetry told them could have been that Curiosity was being dragged across the surface of Mars by the descent stage after a failure to release the cables. They waited until they were sure Curiosity wasn't moving before declaring "Touch Down Confirmed."
  Oh man, still gets me a little thinking about those words. Hehe.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
37. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Chris+Burke · 2013-03-06 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, even some of the new parts weren't that new, though doing aerodynamic flight in Mars atmosphere counts as fairly new if not unprecedented.
  The Viking's last stage of descent was done entirely with retrorockets on the lander itself. The MER rovers used a rocket powered descent stage that then dropped the rovers in their airbag-lined shells only the last 10s of meters. MSL was closer to the MER rovers in this sense, however the Sky Crane part was still completely new.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
38. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by geekoid · 2013-03-06 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Robotin parts that assemble themselves. So you land smaller parts.
  remember, we are talking about an organization that dropped a small car sized vehicle on mars using thrusters and a skyhook... autonomously.
  NASA isn't perfect, but if they said they where going to do X, I would put my money with them...unless X is get more money from congress.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
39. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by geekoid · 2013-03-06 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  oh boo-hoo, its hard. Good. We need to do hard things.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
40. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by kwerle · 2013-03-06 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  With no atmosphere and such a great distance from the sun - and given that there is geological activity making its way to the surface, I have to imagine the surface is anything but smooth. I mean - that recipe is basically volcanic with no atmosphere to weather down the resulting mountains and debris.
  I doubt lithobraking is an option.
41. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by camperdave · 2013-03-06 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  They had a rocket-powered descent stage, but it wasn't a "sky crane" because it didn't lower them on a cable...
  They most certainly were lowered on a cable.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
42. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Chris+Burke · 2013-03-06 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, a cable was involved. They didn't lower it to the ground on a cable. They didn't lower it while in powered flight hovering above the ground. They did it to separate the rover housing from the descent stage so it would have room to deploy the airbags. Compare to the Curiosity EDL and the operation is quite different.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
43. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-03-06 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  But what is Bieber's interest in Uranus?
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
44. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Compare the surface pressure of Europa's atmosphere to the approximate pressure inside a lightbulb sometime. Both are vacuum as near as makes any difference.
45. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-06 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah for the lithobraking idea you would have a low altitude polar orbiter with a high resolution radar mapping instrument. Map the whole moon, and drop the lander on the biggest smooth spot.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
46. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-06 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Europa looks smooth, like warm ice.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
47. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by Zeromous · 2013-03-07 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  >as near as makes any difference.
  Oh i forgot, you're the grand arbiter of zero (none), coward. It's a fact, Europa has a slight atmosphere, no amount of anonymous semantic games will make you correct.
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
48. Re:Europa was discovered in 1610 by Galileo... by nightfury · 2013-03-07 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Common interests. They both produce the same thing.
Europe/Europa by turkeydance · 2013-03-05 13:10 · Score: 1

it's all the same to us. USA rocks!
1. Re:Europe/Europa by gmuslera · 2013-03-05 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, the main difference is that the odds of intelligent life in USA are pretty low.
2. Re:Europe/Europa by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  and yet, it is more likely than anywhere else on this rock.
  The statement is constructed that way for a verbal dramatic effect.
And after another disappointment by IndustrialComplex · 2013-03-05 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

It doesn't matter how well you do in your endeavours if we continuously push 'Chance of life' as a way to get the general public interested. How many times do you think the public can hear about 'Nope, nothing there' when the original headline was 'Amazing new possible discovery that will rock the foundations of the space program". Don't get me wrong, I find the concept of alien geology to be very interesting and love these stories, but please cut back on the 'hints/signs/rumor/promise of life' in headlines.
Before anyone responds with "But we have to make it interesting for the unwashed masses...", I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
1. Re:And after another disappointment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  The unwashed masses apparently have unlimited patience with the repetitive same-old-shit that comes on TV, I don't think they will lose interest in space for the same marketing techniques when it comes to space. They're fucking morons for goodness sake.
2. Re:And after another disappointment by Grayhand · 2013-03-05 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why the assumption there is no life? There are strong signs on Mars that date bad to the Viking missions. Odds are any current life is subterranian but the conditions for life definitely existed in the early days of Mars. Europa has possible conditions now so long as there's an energy source it seems to have liquid water. Several other moons also have the potential so don't write off life so quick. Why is this important? If it happened twice in this same system then the odds of life outside of this system go through the roof and I'd hazard to say they are a 100%. It proves if life can happen it will happen so intelligent life also gets a massive boast. Maybe SETI would get real funding and a starship proposal would get taken seriously. A second source of life changes everything so the potential can't be overstated.
3. Re:And after another disappointment by illestov · 2013-03-05 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  i don't see any false advertisement in this article though, the chances of life on Europa went from most likely not to probably most likely not.
  
  --
  its life Jim but not as we know it.
4. Re:And after another disappointment by fustakrakich · 2013-03-05 14:50 · Score: 2
  
  But wait! There's more! We'll throw in this miniature monolith absolutely free to the first 3,000 customers!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
5. Re:And after another disappointment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wishful thinking isn't a good predictor for discoveries.
6. Re:And after another disappointment by geekoid · 2013-03-06 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.
  why not?
  Of course their only influence would be getting politician to focus on in more, but I'll set that aside.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Too far away by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:11 · Score: 0

Europa is too far away. We should just send it on a crash course for mars. By the time it gets there we will have found a way to thicken up the atmosphere a bit so the water doesn't evaporate right away.
1. Re:Too far away by IndustrialComplex · 2013-03-05 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be willing to bet that the addition of mass roughly the size of Europa might also be the solution to that problem as well.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
2. Re:Too far away by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-03-05 13:41 · Score: 2
  
  Europa is too far away. We should just send it on a crash course for mars. By the time it gets there we will have found a way to thicken up the atmosphere a bit so the water doesn't evaporate right away.
  Do you plan to do the pushing?
  No kidding on "by the time it gets there". It will take a LOT of pushing to get it up out of Jupiter's orbit and then downhill to an impact orbit with Mars.
  After that Mars will be too hot for life for a long time.
  Meanwhile, if there is life on Europa OR Mars, you've just created an extinction (event or two) of total-biosphere magnitude. Here's hoping nobody does that to Earth.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
3. Re:Too far away by gmuslera · 2013-03-05 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Streetlight effect anyone? Leaving it for later don't mean that then we will be able to do it, we could be in the same situation as today or worse.
Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:13 · Score: 0

Discovery Increases Odds of Life On Europa? I would have thought that pieces of Discovery raining on Europa would *decrease* the odds of life. Especially if one lands right on some poor alien critter's head.
Funny to think that that happened only three years ago.
Agreed. by Press2ToContinue · 2013-03-05 13:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Almost certain he gets more probing as well.

--
Sent from my ENIAC
We've been warned about this... by narcc · 2013-03-05 13:30 · Score: 1

"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there." -- A. C. Clarke

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
1. Re:We've been warned about this... by gmhowell · 2013-03-05 14:45 · Score: 2
  
  Came for the 2001 reference. Left satisfied (Eventually. I mean, WTF, mentioning both 'Discovery' and 'Europa' in the title, and a 2001 reference wasn't the frost piss?)
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
2. Re:We've been warned about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  You are nine years off.
3. Re:We've been warned about this... by narcc · 2013-03-05 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  I know! I posted this as the obvious 2010 references were conspicuously absent.
  (I should have waited as all it did was earn me a "redundant" mod! I suppose I could have replied out-of-context to the first post to push my comment closer to the top of the page -- that seems to be a popular strategy.)
  Oh, Slashdot!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
4. Re:We've been warned about this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Europa... life... frost piss... nicely done.
A simple solution by Grayhand · 2013-03-05 13:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just spread the rumor that Europan whales make the best sushi in the Universe and the Japanese will launch a mission to Europa within the year. As an added bonus Iceland would start a space program.
1. Re:A simple solution by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-03-05 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Liquid oxygen and kerosene is a reasonably common propellant, I wonder if anybody has worked out the piping challenges of getting your(totally steampunk) liquid oxygen and whale oil rocket off the ground?
2. Re:A simple solution by Spinalcold · 2013-03-05 16:03 · Score: 2
  
  that or Spock and Kirk will come back in time to save them.
3. Re:A simple solution by Coward+Anonymous · 2013-03-05 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Where do I contribute to Japan's space program? Sign me up!
4. Re:A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  Better yet, announce that oil has been discovered, and America will launch a manned mission to bring democracy to Europa.
5. Re:A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Just spread the rumor that Europan whales make the best sushi in the Universe and the Japanese will launch a mission to Europa within the year. As an added bonus Iceland would start a space program.
  ...yes, and they would LIE about their intent by saying it's for research purposes.
  Uncivilised bastards.
Lithobraking by MichaelSmith · 2013-03-05 13:38 · Score: 1

It just occured to be that some parts of Europa are so flat that a vehicle in the form of a sled may be able to slide to a stop from orbital velocity.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
We were warned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:42 · Score: 2, Funny

All these worlds
Are yours except
Europa
Attempt no
Landing there
1. Re:We were warned by Sir+or+Madman · 2013-03-05 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Humans have always been jerks who ignore signs. Sometimes we need a good whupping to make us think.
  Europa, here we come. Yeeha!
2. Re:We were warned by Nidi62 · 2013-03-05 14:09 · Score: 2
  
  Burma Shave
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:We were warned by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · 2013-03-05 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  I was totally going to post that.
4. Re:We were warned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  I know, no matter how many times Europa makes it to the news, there's always some unoriginal cretin that feels obliged to repeat the very same inanity yet again. And he/she get modded up to by like-minded morons no doubt.
  Meanwhile more intelligent, factual posts languish.
  Guys, it is not funny after the 2nd time, let alone the 100th!
5. Re:We were warned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  you and every other fucker
6. Re:We were warned by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-03-06 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. Its always funny, insightful and thought provoking. Arthur C Clarke was one of the best writers of the 20th century. We could stand to quote him more often. This is slashdot. Trust me, nothing here is any more insightful than that.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
What did they find? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 13:53 · Score: 0

A 3D printer? A private space program? A condo? What?
It's things like this... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-03-05 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's things like Europa and robots on Mars that make me want to punch the 'Cry, cry, we need to put a man back on the moon, because something!' crowd.
Was the Apollo program a heroic piece of engineering? No question. But does the moon have any major virtues aside from being close enough to man-in-a-can with relatively primitive life support gear? It's a hostile, sterile rock with not a whisper of atmosphere(and conveniently close and well-lit for the telescope crew). We have basically no reason to suspect that it has, or ever had, anything approaching life. Mars is a practically shirtsleeves environment by comparison, and Europa is under serious suspicion of having some serious organic chemistry going down under the ice. What sort of grainy, sepia-toned nostalgia wankfest would have us putzing around the moon, again, when there is other cool stuff to poke at?
1. Re:It's things like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  The moon while realitively pointless exploration wise does offer a close and excellent hostile environment to test equipment and technology that costs billions and long periods of travel time to send all the way to mars/jupiter. So it isn't a complete waste.
2. Re:It's things like this... by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2013-03-05 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Short term, I agree completely. In the longer term, it may make sense to mine and refine minerals into construction materials for space vehicles on the moon. The smaller gravity well and lack of atmosphere may make it much cheaper to get construction materials into space from the moon rather than from Earth. Railgun launch into lunar orbit is an old idea.
  
  --
  Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
3. Re:It's things like this... by Jeremi · 2013-03-05 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if nothing else, the moon would make a good location for a moon base. ;) If there was a practical way to mine rocket fuel on the moon, I think that could be a good refuelling/re-launching point for rockets bound for other parts of the solar system.
  Also, I understand that the far side of the moon would be a good location for telescopes that want to minimize EM pollution from Earth.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
4. Re:It's things like this... by drunk_punk · 2013-03-05 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need a man on the moon. We need Mankind on the moon. Specifically to mine HE3 and to be used as a launch site. I think that would be pretty cool.
5. Re:It's things like this... by spiritplumber · 2013-03-05 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  The Moon Nazis already did, we just need to have a spaceship fight for it.
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
6. Re:It's things like this... by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-03-06 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, the real issue for people is trying to get some long-term corporate/government buy-in to space exploration. If there were strategic or material interests in space, then the cost of doing anything there would plummet. It's why people are so excited by the asteroid mining enterprises - resources aside, if we can make space actively profitable then science and exploration there is going to get very well-funded.
7. Re:It's things like this... by dywolf · 2013-03-06 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  there's plenty of other reasons to be on the moon. for one, a permanent settlement in a hollowed out moon makes for a perfect space dock / manufacturing facility, simplifying a lot of the engineering in building such a thing in space, and with a lot smaller gravity well to escape from. it makes a perfect stepping stone.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
8. Re:It's things like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if nothing else, the moon would make a good location for a moon base. ;)
  True, we could hardly build a moon base on Mars.
All while NASA has become Mars obsessed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:01 · Score: 0

See here :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=has-nasa-become-mars-obsessed
$ 5B for Mars alone lately (Curiosity, MAVEN, Insight, Curiosity 2) and nothing left for Titan or Europa.
Pathetic!
Jelly fish by ceview · 2013-03-05 14:11 · Score: 1

Well what kind of life would there be? I'm guessing mostly jelly fish. Can they check for any other kind of chemical traces?
1. Re:Jelly fish by gmuslera · 2013-03-05 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Even unicellular life will make a difference. Still most people things that Earth is the center of the univese, and that the rest is just background to make the sky less boring at night.
2. Re:Jelly fish by physburn · 2013-03-05 23:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It would be extermely interesting biochemically, would probably be made up of different organic compound than earth life.
3. Re:Jelly fish by geekoid · 2013-03-06 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  No. we don't know enough to say if that is probable or not.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
All these worlds are yours, except Europa! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 14:57 · Score: 0

All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace.
1. Re:All these worlds are yours, except Europa! by crossb0nez · 2013-03-05 15:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  My God! It's full of Starfish!!!
  
  --
  Rule of Acquisition #19: Satisfaction is Not guaranteed.
2. Re:All these worlds are yours, except Europa! by a_hanso · 2013-03-05 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  Those last two lines are not there in the book.
3. Re:All these worlds are yours, except Europa! by Raved+Thrad · 2013-03-05 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think... I feel good about it.
  
  --
  Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
4. Re:All these worlds are yours, except Europa! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-03-06 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Or worms - maybe even intelligent worms capable of thinking great worm thoughts like, "dirt, dirt, water, dirt, um... more dirt, aw shit. Dirt..."
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Discovery? by rossdee · 2013-03-05 15:31 · Score: 1

You can't really take that channel seriously anymore - its full of stuff like Mythbusters, Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, , Dual Survival, Cash Cab etc
Great entertainment but not real science.
1. Re:Discovery? by cyberchondriac · 2013-03-06 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's not even great entertainment. It's mostly realityTV suckage.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Now that would be ironic by Megahard · 2013-03-05 16:18 · Score: 1

If the guy who admits killing Pluto finds life on another object.

--
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
but what if they do? by kawabago · 2013-03-05 16:18 · Score: 1

And you've sentenced them to extinction by sushi?
1. Re:but what if they do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 20:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And you've sentenced them to extinction by sushi?
  When they're approaching they'll get a message reading:
  
  ALL THESE WORLDS
  ARE YOURS EXCEPT
  EUROPA
  ATTEMPT NO
  LANDING THERE
  THEY ARE NOT FOR SUSHI
Odds of 'finding' life by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 16:39 · Score: 1

Isn't it the 'odds of FINDING life'? The 'odds of life' aren't a factor, there is either life there or there isn't.
1. Re:Odds of 'finding' life by sFurbo · 2013-03-05 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on whether you interpret "odds" in a frequentistic or a Bayesian context.
All These Worlds Are Yours... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 17:04 · Score: 0

ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
This is bad news by VernonNemitz · 2013-03-05 17:23 · Score: 2

Please recall this article about "panspermia". It means that we are practically certain to find Earth-originated life-forms down there in the ocean of Europa. If life originated there independently of Earth, there might not be any evidence of it left!
How can making an observation "increase odds?" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-05 17:41 · Score: 0

Either there is life on Europa or there isn't. When you talk about "odds" you are talking about something that hasn't happened yet: the odds of a coin coming up tails are 1:1. But life on Europa either exists or it doesn't, and it will be the way it is regardless of what we do.
alternative uses for an RTG by j1m+5n0w · 2013-03-05 18:16 · Score: 2

Given that this thread mentioned using an RTG (a Radioisotope Thermal Generator, which is just an electrical generator that operates off of waste heat produced by a radioactive material decaying), it seems like the solution here is pretty obvious, even if it might be a painfully slow.
Pedantic... by Mal-2 · 2013-03-05 19:21 · Score: 1

The odds of finding life within (not ON) Europa are exactly the same as they were before. The conditions either are or are not conducive to life, whether we were aware of them or not. That life either does or does not exist, whether we were aware of it or not. (The place could be habitable, but uninhabited, so the two statements are not the same.)
What has changed is our belief of just what those odds ARE. The residents of Europa, should they exist, are completely unaffected by this news... at least until we decide to drop in on them.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
1. Re:Pedantic... by geekoid · 2013-03-06 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nope.
  Gambling odds it the reference they are using; which is correct becasue when you talk about the odds in this scenerio we are using that in a risk/reward matrix to determine is the odds are high enough that their is life for us to undertake the rick of going their.
  Too swap it around, from the residents of Europe(if any), the odd we will go their just went up..again.
  Sometime words mean different things.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Ahhh Epsonite.. by drewsup · 2013-03-06 01:15 · Score: 1

no wonder my printer catridges cost so much, they had to go to Europa to mine it!
I live there by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 01:30 · Score: 0

I live in Europe, and it's life allright, but not as we know it.
Bath Salts? by Grizzley9 · 2013-03-06 04:49 · Score: 1

The mineral of interest is epsomite, a magnesium sulfate compound that can only come from the ocean below.

So the great discovery on Europa are bath salts. Well I guess we do face an aging population, perhaps this will get a good push from all the AARP crowd so they can soak comfortably.
Bravo! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 08:23 · Score: 0

Way to get more money!
Like this shit isn't stuff we already extrapolated from previous observations and data years ago. The only new piece of data is Mg.
You know what? we found titanium ore on the surface of the moon. I don't hear anyone screaming to get money to return to the moon.....