Slashdot Mirror


Draper Labs Develops Low Cost Probe To Orbit, Land On Europa For NASA

MarkWhittington writes Ever since the House passed a NASA spending bill that allocated $100 million for a probe to Jupiter's moon Europa, the space agency has been attempting to find a way to do such a mission on the cheap. The trick is that the mission has to cost less than $1 billion, a tall order for anything headed to the Outer Planets. According to a Wednesday story in the Atlantic, some researchers at Draper Labs have come up with a cheap way to do a Europa orbiter and land instruments on its icy surface.

The first stage is to orbit a cubesat, a tiny, coffee can sized satellite that would contain two highly accurate accelerometers that would go into orbit around Europa and measure its gravity field. In this way the location of Europa's subsurface oceans would be mapped. Indeed it is possible that the probe might find an opening through the ice crust to the ocean, warmed it is thought by tidal forces.

The second stage is to deploy even smaller probes called chipsats, tiny devices that contain sensors, a microchip, and an antenna. Hundreds of these probes, the size of human fingernails, would float down on Europa's atmosphere to be scattered about its surface. While some might be lost, enough will land over a wide enough area to do an extensive chemical analysis of the surface of Europa, which would then be transmitted to the cubesat mothership and then beamed to Earth.

14 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. NOOOOOOOO!!!!! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

    Attempt no landings there!!!

  2. That's what I'm talkin' about! by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's science right there - all our best evidence indicates that this can be feasible, and this seems the least effort to try it. Nice plan to at least see how far we can get, before we have to revise and replan. We're testing just the principles we want to test, using established functionality where we aren't testing.

    That's far more 'magical' to me, than promising another set of boots in places that won't be feasible without exactly these kinds of experiments happening first. More rovers - more measurements!

    When we need to spend the big resources to send people off this gravity well, lets have it make sense, perhaps set up a semblance of an workable environment first. We can barely make earth-based closed etiologies last for long - it would be a sad excuse for a 'backup' with our current level of development. We absolutely CAN expand into the galaxy/universe - but we've still got a few mountains of puzzle pieces left unsorted still, in my particular opinion.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:That's what I'm talkin' about! by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is it with you religious types and your dog whistle language? "gravity well"?

      And your space-addled brain sure picks some fancy words: "etiologies"??? You might want to look that one up!

      " We absolutely CAN expand into the galaxy/universe "

      LOL no "we" can't! Even if we could, evolution is still happening, what "we" are you talking about at those time scales?

      And why is it important? It's never gonna happen.

      Such a negative personality (I know, I know, "No, I'm not!"). The research to be done, technologies to be developed, and issues to be solved with becoming a space-faring race will pay us back many times over in solving the issues we have here on Earth.

      "Religious types?" "dog whistle language?" I know you can type on a keyboard, but can you actually read for comprehension? I think not. If you could, you'd realize what a steaming load you're posting.

      A bit of unsolicited advice for you, champ: 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

      Cheers!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  3. Re:A waste of money, and irresponsible. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nonesense. Add $100M to a $13T debt and you still have a $13T debt, it's a rounding error, a one off payment of 33 cents for every American.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. Fun thought experiment but not practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cubesat-sized stuff is so small mostly because it tosses overboard redundancy and rad-hardened components.

    While it may work for short times on Earth orbit, sending a mini probe like this all the way to Jupiter (a very hostile radiation environment if there ever was one) sounds like a good way of wasting a launcher to me.

    Now if they'd toss half a dozen of these, I might buy it that one or two will get to Europa orbit and may actually do something useful.

    1. Re:Fun thought experiment but not practical by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      Gee, I guess the engineers at NASA don't know about radiation levels at Jupiter. Lucky for them you posted about it on the internets. I'll forward them your post so they aren't left in the dark.

    2. Re:Fun thought experiment but not practical by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cubesat-sized stuff is so small mostly because it tosses overboard redundancy and rad-hardened components.

      You can significantly rad-harden a device without adding weight. First, make sure the semiconductors use depleted boron. Many off-the-shelf semiconductors already use Boron-11. Second, use any spare CPU cycles to run checksums on memory and FPGA bitstreams, to detect and restore flipped bits. Third, use a few cheap rad-harded 8-bit microcontrollers, such as 8051, for the most critical functions, such as the watchdog timer, and controlling the fallback RX/TX to Earth, including the ability to receive and install software patches. These 8-bit MCUs can be OTP with blown fuses, so there are no bits to flip.

    3. Re:Fun thought experiment but not practical by werepants · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gee, I guess the engineers at NASA don't know about radiation levels at Jupiter. Lucky for them you posted about it on the internets. I'll forward them your post so they aren't left in the dark.

      Actually, OP is completely correct. I just sat in on a series of NASA talks on cubesats (NEPP, look it up) - they have huge problems with radiation and reliability because there isn't the budget for the testing and qualification that happens with typical satellites. Translation: 30% failure rate in benign environments. For reference, we're talking about systems that are (mostly) good up to 1-4 krads of ionizing dose, while projections I've seen for the Europa environment are ~ 2 Mrads. Or 2000 krads, if your metric is rusty. So we're talking about as much as 3 orders of magnitude more dose, with a system architecture that already experiences horrendous failure rates.

      I don't know anything about Draper systems, but unless they've included mass budget for some serious shielding (look up JUNO and the "vault" they used for their electronics) there's no way this thing will last long enough to do useful science, if it even survives the trip there. It's entirely possible that this entire thing is the brainchild of a couple of postdocs who took some classes on spacecraft architectures but no nothing about how rad-hard electronic systems are actually developed.

      Now, it's certainly possible that this project would be in a different class of cubesat, and they might be able to afford real, rad-hard components with Mrad range dose tolerance, but even so, Jupiter is one of the harshest radiation environments in the solar system, and satellites with traditional, expensive development cycles still have mission lifetimes of several months, tops. The only real way I could see them being successful is with rad-hard components and an extremely short mission profile - show up, dump the chipsats, and beam back some data as fast as possible before your electronics go insane and melt.

  5. "float down on Europa's atmosphere" by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 2

    Um, are we talking about the same Europa here? The one with the atmosphere that barely musters a nanotorr at the surface? The one where the terminal velocity of a scrap of mylar film is on the order of tens of kilometers per second? I think that "float down" plan may have been selected a bit hastily.

    At least the chipsats turning into teeny little craters in the ice will reduce the data burden for the cubesat's transmitter, which based on those solar panels has a power budget of about a tenth of a watt to make a link at a range close to a billion kilometers. You can maybe squeeze a few hundred bits per second out of that while you're tying up a DSN dish, otherwise forget it.

    Maybe they're thinking of making it an accessory to a full-size probe, but forgot to mention the need to send a few hundred kilograms of other stuff out there too. Or maybe somebody was behind on their press release quota, and this half-baked crap was the best thing they had lying around.

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    1. Re:"float down on Europa's atmosphere" by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Funny

      Um, are we talking about the same Europa here?

      Maybe the Draper Labs guys misread the project definition.
      "Europa??? we thought you meant Europe"

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    2. Re:"float down on Europa's atmosphere" by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      Galileo didn't have a parachute, and didn't soft land anywhere -- it was intentionally burned up in a high speed plunge into Jupiter's atmosphere. Perhaps you are thinking about the Cassini/Huygens probe of Titan, Saturn's largest moon which does have a dense atmosphere. I have to agree with the OP -- there is something not right about a plan to use Europa's practically non-existent atmosphere for this.

    3. Re:"float down on Europa's atmosphere" by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2

      Whichever destination, there's a lot of work to do before the final countdown.

  6. Re:A waste of money, and irresponsible. by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a waste of money, regardless, but considering the economy, it isn't a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, either.

    Right. Because science is always a bad investment.

    We should spend taxpayer money in military so we can steal from the countries that do advance technologically? Or what's your master plan on how to stay among the first instead of plummeting to the group of those countries that mostly serve as factories for the more advanced.

  7. I find this approach unsettling by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

    We've certainly left rovers and probes on other planets, and even intentionally crashed a couple on the moon. But raining hundreds of fingernail-sized chipsats on Europa kind of seems like cosmic littering. The debris from previous exploration missions have always felt large enough that we could go and pick it up if we were inclined (or capable) to do so. I know the truth is probably as bad or worse than this Europa mission, and I've probably subconsciously ignored that truth, but this just seems so willfully arrogant.

    I feel like it plays into some of my worst fears about our species: arrogant, destructive, self-centered, lacking empathy, etc. As long as we exhibit those kinds of behaviors, we'll never get invited to the really good extra-terrestrial parties. You know, the ones where the all of the molecules of the hostess' undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left? Let's not do this mission. I want to go to that kind of party.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.