Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Make the Science Case For a Mission To Neptune and Uranus
KentuckyFC writes "The only planets never to have been the subjects of bespoke space missions from Earth are Neptune and Uranus. Now European astronomers are planning to put that straight with a mission called Odinus, which involves twin spacecraft making the journey in 2034. Their justification is that the mission will help explain how the Solar System formed, how it ended up in the configuration we see today and may also explain why 'hot' Neptune-class planets are common around other stars. They also have to overcome the common misconception that Neptune and Uranus are just smaller, less interesting versions of Jupiter and Saturn. Nothing could be further from the truth. For a start, Neptune and Uranus and made of entirely different stuff--mostly ices such as water, ammonia and methane compared with hydrogen and helium for Jupiter and Saturn. That raises the question of how they formed and how they got to the distant reaches of the Solar System. However it happened, Uranus ended up lying on its side, probably because of a cataclysmic collision. And Neptune's largest moon Triton orbits in the opposite direction to its parent's rotation, the only moon in the Solar System to do this. How come? Another question still unanswered is who's going to pay for all this. The team are pinning their hopes on the European Space Agency which has already expressed interest. But would an international collaboration be a better option?"
Yes if you get the lenses right.
#1 The Event Horizon...
Why wouldn't putting a self sustaining outpost on the moon be more worthy? Our knowledge of how to survive in space would increase exponetially.
Space research represents very little of our national budget about 0.48%. I think the random acts of violent aggression in the world has cost us far more, and continues to do so.
Let the "Uranus" wisecracks commence.
I'm opposed to food stamp cuts, but there are orders of magnitude difference in the costs here. NASA is incredibly cheap, as far as national programs are concerned, and years of budget cuts there haven't done anyone any good. I'd be willing to wager a fair amount that satellite imaging, communication, weather monitoring, and mapping have done more good with respect to helping starving people than the equivalent amount spent directly on food would have.
Did we have any idea of the possible benefits the space race would yield when we started it? I doubt it. Scientific knowledge doesn't go away when you acquire it, and it's literally impossible to say what utility this research could have.
Now... if you want to talk about the value of corporate crop subsidies versus food stamps, then we can be talking the same ballpark for prices and relative human cost.
> Another question still unanswered is who's going to pay for all this.
You may divert my taxes to this instead of (everything else).
NO!!! Don't jack up tax rates!
NO!!! Don't borrow more money!
Ya know what, nevermind.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I had not heard about that.
Why wouldn't putting a self sustaining outpost on the moon be more worthy?
It's not really a question of it being worthy. It's a question of it being super expensive and the fact that we don't really have all the technology we need to do it yet. Most notably we don't really have adequate radiation shielding for a moon base for manned missions, nor do we have the infrastructure in place to supply such a base. Not saying we shouldn't do it but that is mission that is orders of magnitude more expensive and difficult.
A robotic spacecraft being sent to the outer planets is something we know how to do and the price is comparatively modest. We can do that mission with existing technology. A moon base requires development of a lot of stuff we don't have yet even if it isn't manned.
Speaking as a person who actually has children, I welcome deep space exploration. Just because basic research has no immediate applications doesn't mean that it is useless. When it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, a nation should look beyond immediate economic returns. The expansion of the sphere of economically useful scientific knowledge is dependent on the expansion of knowledge per se.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Voyager 2 went to Uranus system in 1986 and Neptune in 1989
I remember reading somewhere that massive as they are they could not had been formed so far from the sun. But when they moved to the distant reaches of the solar system they did a real fucking mess that caused massive collisions that hit Venus, Mars and the Earth. In the Earth case it was the event that created the moon but Mars and Venus were smaller and didn't had the same luck. This could be the reason of Venus' retrograde orbit and the impact that created Mars' Valis Marinelis. Such an event could also have destroyed the convection mechanism of the nucleus that creates the magnetic field and extinguished the water on those planets to evaporate.
The fact that such planets are normally found near extrasolar stars is interesting. It kinda tells us that the solar system as we know has been shaped by their migration. IANAA and I don't have a source for that so feel free to correct me. Its just amazing how everything related to the solar system formation is connected to those 2 big god damn fuckers.
You are using a very deceptive tactic here; the technology required to send probes to Uranus and Neptune exist today. There is no new development required, no technology spinoffs into the private sector. This is about the gathering of knowledge purely for the sake of science. If we obtain some insights about how Uranus and Neptune wound up where they are, how they are, there is not going to be a bunch of startups in Cambridge MA cranking out new wonder devices based on this knowledge.
Hear hear. Let's completely eliminate half the crop subsidies, and transfer the other half to foodstamps to eliminate any economic hardships that may cause. We can then start cutting food stamps after we've eliminated the massive corporate fossil fuel subsidies. (What do you suppose complete legal immunity to the consequences of your fracking is worth in insurance dollars saved?)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
At the very mention of Uranus, anal and probe jokes/comments will abound. I can't say I wasn't tempted to do the same, but that planet is already the butt of too many pokes... err jokes.
Because their horoscope told them.
We in the US will get right on that... after maintaining our nuclear arsenal, building a few squadrons of unneeded bombers, a few aircraft carriers, perhaps a new attack sub, and building a giant spying apparatus of unprecedented size and scope.
Since this is a EUROPEAN proposal, it is apparent that you did not RTFA.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Regarding Global Warming, that whole idea came from our exploration of Venus - ONE planet.
Quite possibly by exploring other planets and moons, climate theory may have to be adjusted based on new data and evidence - it may be detrimental to the AGW folks.
In other words, the exploration of other planets may just blow the AGW liberals out of the water.
Science, on occasion, spanks the liberals too.
-Just say'in.
It's about time we take a closer look at Uranus and Neptune! From what we know already, they are at least as interesting as Jupiter and Saturn and WAY more fascinating than any of the rocky planets (Mars is, like, so 1990s). /really/ pretty pictures, but scientifically, such a mission should be very rewarding, too.
If nothing else, a mission to visit the ice giants should make for some
As far as the money goes - and I will not even touch on the insanely bloated US military budget - I have been wondering for a while now why in astronomy so many countries seem to prefer doing their own thing instead of pooling their resources. If one could get China, the EU, India, Japan, Russia, and the USA to cooperate on such a mission, it should not be a problem.
I only hope, if such a mission gets on the road, that it will be a Galileo/Cassini-style long-term mission rather than the hasty fly-by New Horizons is going to do.
All we have to do is tunnel below the Moon's surface.
Oh is that all? An pray tell, where can I get one of these robotic tunnel borers on the moon? You're talking about getting a HUGE piece of equipment to the moon which has to operate remotely, reliably and requires virtually no servicing. We don't have tunnel boring machines that fit that description here on Earth, much less ones that can operate on the moon. You can't really just hand wave this problem away. Excavating machines are necessarily very heavy and thus extremely expensive with current tech (chemical rockets) to get to the moon. You're likely talking multiple launches of Atlas V class rockets which deliver the machines with pinpoint accuracy to the moon which then somehow have to be put together. And it isn't just the machine to do the tunnel boring, you need structural materials to support the excavation and all the other building materials for the base. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but what I am saying is that it is a VERY challenging and expensive problem for which we do not presently have the technology.
Even better, it's hypothesized that there's already underground tunnels on the Moon, left over from its formation.
So we're going to rely on hypothetical tunnels to shield us from radiation? Great plan...
Uranus probe detects 3-methyl-indole in brown clouds in atmosphere.
Don't give up your day job, that joke stinks...
You know, I'm sick and tired of these Uranus/your anus jokes.
I can't wait until the glorious future when they put a stop to this crap and change the name of the planet to Urectum.
You are using a very deceptive tactic here; the technology required to send probes to Uranus and Neptune exist today. There is no new development required, no technology spinoffs into the private sector.
If they were just going to go photocopy the mechanical drawings for the voyager probes and send them to a machine shop, you would be right. But since sending the probe to the destination is a large fraction of the cost, space agencies would rather pay extra to make sure the equipment on the probe is maximizing the gains from that fixed cost, and will used improved versions of what was done before, develop new detectors and equipment as needed, and testbed some ideas that haven't been done before.
The only planets never to have been the subjects of bespoke space missions from Earth are
Am I misunderstanding the definition of "bespoke" and its application within sentences? I've noted that the usage of this word has increased in recent years, however, it has seemed to be misapplied in the context in which it is used. Most definitions use the word to describe clothing made or tailored to a persons specification...
"For a start, Neptune and Uranus and made of entirely different stuff--mostly ices such as water, ammonia and methane compared with hydrogen and helium for Jupiter and Saturn."
Huh? The composition of Neptune's atmosphere is about 90% hydrogen and 19% helium. Sure, there's ices in there, but "entirely different" and "mostly"? No.
Twenty years to wait? Whatever technology is used for the probe and its sensors is going to be technologically obsolete countless times over by 2034. Honestly if you can't drum up funding for this and get it built and launced inside of five years shouldn't you just hang it up?
(...)
The best option would be an American mission. That way American scientists and engineers and citizens can combine their efforts to accomplish something together. Who knows? It might even create a job or two.
And if the European Space Agency wants to launch a mission, they are welcome to do so.
Because scientific knowledge and discovery has NEVER EVEN ONCE resulted in better economies, new products, innovation and applied science in commercial products, or advances in the general state of manufacturing arts.
There's no better investment of government money.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Agreed. I work in a lab developing equipment for the calibration of sensors on earth monitoring satellites. There is active research going on even for space vehicles close to home and it is difficult to tell where else this research will be of use.
This is about the gathering of knowledge purely for the sake of science.
That seems like a good enough reason as any.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Here's an idea: instead of spending all this money now to launch probes from Earth, why not spend it instead on building a base with launch infrastructure on the Moon? No atmosphere, no environment to worry about, lesser gravity well...the list of advantages is quite large. The only disadvantage is it would take a while to get going. But the same could be said for the space industry 50 years ago. So we could spend a lot of money on a lunar base now and get huge payoffs later, or keep spending almost as much on Earth-launched probes for the next several decades and advance the human presence in space not one whit.
NASA still hasn't figured this out. The public is not *interested* in these pure science missions, regardless of how beneficial they are to scientists and engineers. The public wants the glory, grandeur, and *adventure* of Apollo. And without public backing, NASA's budget gets whacked again and again and again. NASA needs to come up with things that capture the public's imagination like the glory days of the 1960's. Then they'll get the money and political clout to do big things. I'm sure most American's don't give two damns about a mission to Uranus or Neptune.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Only 606 more years to go!
I agree, it's pretty shitty.
Isn't the ESA international by nature? Perhaps the submitter meant to ask about a joint venture with other space agencies, but the EU itself, as well as the ESA, are both already international entities.
It would be interesting, I would hope they could build a robotic vessel verse a small bus size space problem with limited life span.
Having a ship that has better sensors, labs, the ability to deploy disposable probes or landers. Be able guide this thing back to earth to refit, that would make things more interesting.
I don't know about that. I thought it was raspberry scented myself.
Just not in prison..
There's nothing as nice as surprise wakeup sex.
Unless you're in prison.
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
you'd be lying on your side too!
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
Use SKYLON. It will be coming on stream about then...
Spacecraft don't use a lot of state-of-the-art electronics and components for the same reason cars don't. These things need to be reliable, and that often means older, larger, more stable electronics. This is an area where engineers still use hand-tied knots for cable fastening--even ancient knots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
this link is far superior than the genral Slooh link
Do you know what a launch window is? You can't just launch a probe full throttle to the outer solar system and expect it to get there in a human lifetime. You have to use one or more gas giants and possibly one or more of the inner planets for a gravity assist. They discuss launch windows 2-6 between now and 2066. ESA had requested submission for proposals for launch windows 2 and 3 (number 3 is 2034). Space missions do not happen overnight. The technology is typically a decade or two old. This isn't some l33t gaming machine you're building for the latest 3rd person shooter drivel. A bug often means a catastrophic failure.
... and average /. poster is still 10.
I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, but this mission isn't likely to happen soon. The paper referenced in the original post is a write-up of a case made to the call for ideas put out by the European Space Agency for future large missions, specifically looking for one to be launched in 2028 and another in 2034 (L2 and L3, in ESA-speak, with L1 being a mission to Jupiter and its icy moons, selected a year or so earlier).
Problem is, the Uranus/Neptune case didn't win either the L2 or L3 slot. A wide range of scientific ideas and mission concepts were proposed, aired publically, and assessed by a senior survey committee, before the two top-ranked ideas were approved by ESA's Science Programme Committee in late 2013.
And those two future missions will be a new high-energy astrophysics observatory for L2 in 2028 and a gravitational wave observatory for L3 in 2034.
The senior survey committee liked the science case for Uranus and Neptune, saying "The SSC considered the study of the icy giants to be a theme of very high science quality and perfectly fitting the criteria for an L-class mission", but then went on to say:
"However, in view of the competition with a range of other high quality science themes, and despite its undoubted quality, on balance and taking account of the wide array of themes, the SSC does not recommend this theme for L2 or L3. In view of its importance, however, the SSC recommends that every effort is made to pursue this theme through other means, such as cooperation on missions led by partner agencies."
So, it certainly won't be an ESA-led mission in the foreseeable future, but ESA could participate in a wider international mission if someone else leads it.
You can read the whole report here.
The main bit of technology that we'd really need to develop, before anything else, is the ability to set up manufacturing sites on the Moon, and to mine and refine ores on the Moon and use them for manufacturing there, rather than having to lift everything from the Earth's surface.
I think you are badly underestimating the amount of infrastructure required to manufacture anything on a significant scale other than on Earth. Want to make steel on the moon? In no particular order you will need a large source of iron ore, carbon, oxygen, alloying compounds like chromium or vanadium. You'll need equipment to mine, transport, process, store, all of these plus their byproducts. You need furnaces capable of generating and withstanding temperatures higher than 1375C and not just little ones. You'll need a vast source of power with all the attendant infrastructure that goes into generating that power. You need the ability to test the steel and to adjust production to keep the chemical composition correct. You need another complete infrastructure to turn the steel into useful products. Then you need another set of infrastructure to actually do something useful with the products you have just made. Bear in mind that ALL of this tech will have to be developed for an environment where we have little experience, unproven tech and where the difficulties and costs are multiplied by orders of magnitude.
I haven't even touched on the economic problems either.
Quite frankly, simply getting some equipment to the Moon is the least of the problems we face in doing extraterrestrial manufacturing. We take the infrastructure we have here on earth for granted sometimes but you can't do that elsewhere. This is one of many reasons why the notion of mining asteroids is largely absurd. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually all for trying to manufacture in space but let's not pretend that the challenges are trivial. We're talking about something that is MUCH harder than the Apollo missions and vastly more expensive in all likelihood.
NASA has contributed more to our society far more than most (e.g. plastics, ceramics, things that we rely on for our daily lives, that sort of thing), and we spend FAR less on space exploration than our cluterfucked government GAVE to the financial industry as "punishment" for fucking over the entire nation.
Did we have any idea of the possible benefits the space race would yield when we started it?
Weather satellites in and of themselves have saved millions of lives, by allowing us to warn people of hurricanes / typhoons so they can get out of the way before being killed.
The existing space program has more than paid for itself.
Neptune is absolutely the most beautiful, aweinspiring object in the solar system. I think we should go just for the beauty of it. I could probably happily die orbiting it and looking at it. I wonder if the light levels there are good enough to appreciate it, or if our images are brighter than it would appear to the naked eye.