Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside the Mission To Europa (arstechnica.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the starting-another-robot-colony dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica details the political and engineering battles being waged to make it possible for NASA to land a probe on Jupiter's moon Europa. They have new information about mission plans; it sounds ambitious, to say the least. "First, the bad news. Adding a lander to the Clipper will require additional technical work and necessitate a launch delay until late 2023. At that time, the massive Space Launch System rocket NASA is developing could deliver it to Jupiter in 4.6 years. Once there, the lander would separate from the Clipper, parking in a low-radiation orbit.

The Clipper would then proceed to reconnoiter Europa, diving into the harsh radiation environment to observe the moon and then zipping back out into cleaner space to relay its data back to Earth. Over a three-year period, the Clipper would image 95 percent of the world at about 50 meters per pixel and three percent at a very high resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel. With this data, scientists could find a suitable landing site. ...The JPL engineers have concluded the best way to deliver the lander to Europa's jagged surface is by way of a sky crane mechanism, like the one successfully used in the last stage of Curiosity's descent to the surface of Mars. With four steerable engines and an autonomous system to avoid hazards, the lander would be lowered to the moon's surface by an umbilical cord."

106 comments

  1. It uses the integrated face system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The integrated face system uses rockets to thrust into the right position to land.

  2. uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "all these worlds
    are yours except
    europa
    attempt no
    landing there
    use them together
    use them in peace"

  3. Why not the imperial probe droid method by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    High impact shell that the probe emerges from in a nice safe crater.

    You could even create the crater first if you wanted to keep things simple.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why not the imperial probe droid method by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      High impact shell that the probe emerges from in a nice safe crater.

      You could even create the crater first if you wanted to keep things simple.

      Gees. Lots of them. We don't have inertial dampeners.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    2. Re:Why not the imperial probe droid method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoth had an Earth-like atmosphere so the probe would aerobrake for an impact speed below 100m/s (similar to the Genesis sample return capsule after its parachute failed) - this could be survivable with robust design and materials. However, an Europa lander would be going orders of magnitude faster and would vaporize on impact.

  4. But remember what HAL said by rossdee · · Score: 1, Funny

    All these worlds are yours, except Europa
    Attempt no landings there.

    1. Re:But remember what HAL said by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      FYI. That wasn't HAL.

    2. Re:But remember what HAL said by chispito · · Score: 1

      It's not funny if TFA uses the same joke.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:But remember what HAL said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats was "Dave Bowman"....

    4. Re:But remember what HAL said by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      It's not Slashdot if someone reads TFA.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:But remember what HAL said by khallow · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was HAL. He was relaying a message, but he did radio that.

  5. Europa is for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern app appers use Eur-APP-a instead of LUDDITE Europa! Only LUDDITES think Europa is worth anything!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Europa is for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moo. EurAPPean cows love apps! MoooooooooooooooooooAaappppss

    2. Re:Europa is for LUDDITES. by KGIII · · Score: 0

      Now, all we need is how to fit a greased up Europa up your ass and the circle will be complete.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Why? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    Why are we shooting for the moon instead of NEO?

    We can't even get a man into space without Russia. Did we silently just lose the Cold War's Space Race?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama resigned the US to defeat when he cancelled Project Constellation without extending the Space Shuttle program.. SLS is a pale congressional substitute that is still being actively impeded and slow-walked by is cronies at NASA. Obama'w disgusting weakness is clearly reflected by his NASA.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does that have to do with this Europa mission?

    3. Re:Why? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Constellation killed itself, massive cost overruns were pushing it into the $150 - 230 Billion dollar range. SLS is bad, but nowhere near that bad coming in at the $40 - $80 Billion price range.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No bucks, no Buck Rodgers. Leftists have strange priorities.

    5. Re:Why? by orpheus · · Score: 4, Informative

      SpaceX's Dragon has already launched to orbit 8 times, including 6 full resupply missions to ISS, autonomously. It rides the Falcon-9, which has successfully reached orbit 18 times.

      The manned Dragon capsule configuration (aka Dragon 2) is expected to do a demo flight in about a year. It was delayed by the accident investigation due to one faulty support spar (of which thousands had already flown) in May of this year. Falcon 9 is scheduled to return to flight in about a month, but it has a backlog of missions/payload before it can fly the Dragon 2 Demo flight, currently expected in the second half of 2016.

      Yeah, we temporarily stumbled on manned space flight -- but we've done so before (e.g. after the two Shuttle disasters). It's not permanent.

      --

      If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, are you under the strange notion that Obama is a leftist?

      He isn't.

    7. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obama resigned the US to defeat when he cancelled Project Constellation without extending the Space Shuttle program..

      That's pretty clueless. Here's why. The Space Shuttle went nowhere after it demonstrated the conditional viability of reusable launch vehicles in the 80s. There's nothing that flew on the Shuttle that couldn't have been more cheaply flown on some other launch system. Further, the money spent on the Shuttle prevented the US from doing a lot of manned and unmanned work.

      Constellation was no better for the same reasons. It's also worth noting that Constellation would not have survived competiton with the ULA launch vehicles (Atlas V and Delta IV), if the same cost and safety criteria had been applied to them as were applied to the ULA vehicles. However, the report that supposedly decided things in favor of the Constellation configurations (Shuttle-like stack), did so by deliberately understating risk of solid rocket motors, ignoring thrust oscillation of Ares I, and a few other deep problems of the configuration they chose. Then they came up with a completely bogus risk analysis to justify the choice they made.

      We also ignore here that Bush did all the heavy lifting. By the time Obama came in, Shuttle and Constellation were both already walking dead.

      SLS is a pale congressional substitute that is still being actively impeded and slow-walked by is cronies at NASA.

      Crying shame really since we really need another dead end program to consume all that funding we could have used on real space projects. And it doesn't help that SLS is also underfunded by Congress, the only ones who claim to want it.

    8. Re:Why? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Better still, the PR fallout from that accident doesn't begin to compare to those involving manned shuttles. Launches and reentries are generally the most dangerous part of a mission, but so long as nobody dies the risks can be handled from a purely financial perspective. And so long as you've budgeted for it a financial hit can is a lot easier to recover from than a media one.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Why? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dunno... The astronauts that repaired the Hubble might not have been able to do so on any other platform that was available at the time.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Why? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, there was actually a lot that flew on the Shuttle that couldn't have flown on any other launch vehicle - and we're not just talking people and a much more capable deployment system. Between 1988 and 2004 the Shuttle was the highest payload launch vehicle in the world. And the lower end of that range is questionable, as Energia never flew in its heavy lift configuration. In 2004 the Delta IV Heavy came online with slightly more payload capacity than the Shuttle, And really while it "came online" in 2004, its first successful launch wasn't until 2007. The Titan IVB came fairly close to the shuttle's nominal payload (which, BTW, could be increased in certain launch configurations) from 1997 to 2005, but wasn't as large. The same could be said about the Proton M from 1999 onwards and Ariane V from 2002. The Space Shuttle nonetheless had 15% more payload capacity and much more capable launch abilities than these systems (as well as being the only large payload return system in the world that ever operated for more than a few test flights). During the timeperiods these systems weren't available, the next closest systems to the Shuttle in terms of payload had only 3/4ths of its launch capacity.

      Part of the reason they kept the Shuttle flying for so long (many had wanted to retire it much sooner) was that there were some ISS modules that could only be launched by the Shuttle.

      There were a lot of things that nearly came to be that would have significantly boosted the Shuttle's payload even more, such as the ASRM. They had also started work on the five-segment booster, which would have vastly increased the Shuttle's payload (it's now part of SLS). If there had ever been demand, it had been determined that the payload bay could have been modified into a 30-74 seat passenger area, with a launch cost of 1,5 million USD per passenger (flights per passenger on Soyuz cost $20-40m)

      --
      Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
    11. Re:Why? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There's a tendency towards revisionist history, here on Slashdot. Sometimes, for whatever reason, that appears to be aimed at NASA with an alarming frequency. I have no idea what the motivations are, nor do I understand the reasoning behind it. It's unfortunate, it really is. I can still think of justification for a space-bus, regardless of costs. And yes, yes I am aware of the risks to life. I'm not a coward, I don't freak out when someone loses a life. It happens and will continue to happen. If we let fear prevent us from our goals then what's the point of having goals?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I dunno... The astronauts that repaired the Hubble might not have been able to do so on any other platform that was available at the time.

      NASA could have launched two or three replacement space telescopes for the price of the Hubble repair missions. Even if your sole interest is in more scientific output, there were significant opportunity costs to using the Space Shuttle.

    13. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 2

      It's unfortunate, it really is. I can still think of justification for a space-bus, regardless of costs.

      But you can't disregard cost. Economics is key to understanding why we no longer launch the Space Shuttle or have a replacement reusable vehicle. In order for a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) to be competitive per launch with an expendable launch vehicle (ELV), the RLV needs to launch several dozen times a year.

      With a small RLV, NASA probably could have afforded to maintain that high launch rate. But for the much larger Shuttle it just wasn't possible.

      As to revisionist history, by 1990, it was clearly demonstrated that the Space Shuttle would not live up to its billing. It couldn't maintain the desired flight rate; it wasn't going to carry the desired payloads; and it didn't have the desired customers (the DOD stopped using the Shuttle shortly thereafter). Yet here we are 25 years later and NASA still doesn't have a replacement for the Shuttle.

      With NASA's flat funding (for about four decades!), the money that would have gone into developing a Shuttle replacement and in running deep space manned missions instead went into Shuttle operations and the International Space Station (ISS) a remarkably expensive boondoggle.

      NASA is again duplicating that failure mode with vast funding going to the Space Launch System even though there is no viable plan or funding for using the vehicle.

    14. Re:Why? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Do you have some numbers to back that up? I don't think we actually had anything capable, except for the shuttle, to put that much mass into orbit at that time so we're going to need to know the development costs and the likes factored into that. They also had to have a vehicle capable of doing walks from and supporting them for the duration of that journey. So, I'm going to need to see some numbers.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 2

      There were a bunch of spy satellites which had the same structure, same optics more or less, and same fairing size as the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) which were launched on a variety of vehicles (Shuttle, Titan IV, Delta IV Heavy).

      Further, you mentioned mass. The HST weighed only 11 tonnes which is well in the range of more than half a dozen launch vehicles operating today as well as many more over the past thirty years. However, it's the physical dimensions which constrains the choice of launch vehicle. The Shuttle simply doesn't offer enough of an increase in fairing size to justify itself, especially given the launch vehicles that were eventually able to handle equivalent spy satellites.

      Moving on, development of the Hubble was very expensive, estimated to be over $1.4 billion of $2.5 billion (with much of the development cost due to the launch delay from the Challenger accident). This is a one time cost. Thus, construction costs of the HST and of any additional telescopes would be on the order of $0.5-1 billion, depending on whether launch costs were included.

      Since we have also five repair missions, which dependent on how you account for them, range from roughly $2.5 billion to $12.5 billion (reflecting the marginal cost of an additional mission $0.5 billion to marginal plus annual costs of $1.5 billion). Assuming that the Shuttle would have operated anyway, one gets $2.5 billion as roughly the launch costs of the additional missions. In addition, there are development costs with the original repair mission and additional equipment installed. So right here, we're looking at at least two telescopes. There are development (among other things to address optical and gyroscope issues found with the original HST) and launch costs which would still be several hundred million. So at least two telescopes in cost, possibly three once you including the higher development costs from the original launch delay due to dependence on the Shuttle.

      If the HST actually had $0.5 in construction costs, then you might be look at 4 or 5 HST-equivalent telescopes which could be built and launched for the cost of the original HST's dependence on the Shuttle and subsequent repair missions.

    16. Re:Why? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Alright, and now the craft to get the astronauts there and keep them sustained while doing the repairs? Then, this is a bit intangible so I'll let you provide any number you want on it - it's okay, how about the science that would be lost while we waited for a new HST-esque device to be built, tested, and placed into orbit instead of repairing the existing one? And any risks associated with it - such as potential losses due to the launch being the most dangerous part of any mission and where most losses are incurred? Then, you glossed over the size... We can't just ignore that because it's inconvenient! :D Now we're gonna have to develop a whole new space ship to get it there - that's gonna cost a fortune! And if any of those replacements were broken?

      (Don't get me wrong - I think the shuttle belongs out of service, today. I'm just very grateful for what it did.)

      Actually, no... I think the shuttle should be "retired" but able to be called back if there's a compelling reason to do so. When I sold my business, one of the things I did (after paying a shit-ton of taxes) was find out if I could donate to NASA. It turns out that I can, and did. I was just not able to earmark the donation. I had to donate to their general fund and not to any specific goals. I guess you could say that I am, sort of, a scientist but I'm certainly not a rocket scientist or the likes. I'm a mathematician. And, as such, we're gonna have to do some math to account for some of those externalities you're glossing over.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Alright, and now the craft to get the astronauts there and keep them sustained while doing the repairs?

      Don't bother. Launch more space telescopes instead.

  7. political battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hello USA, can we please NOT derail a NASA discussion for once by not mention any presidents/parties/administrations ?
    Your believe that it is relevant to the topic at hand is ridiculous. It is not. NASA is just a pawn in the political battlefield, easily sacrificed for other interests, like appeasing the constituency at one or another place.

    Space projects require long term vision, and by the constant changing of the goal posts the last 20 or 30 years or so both parties have shown not to have it.

    1. Re:political battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is relevant, in that it is used as a political football. So, discussion of that - which includes political parties, is certainly relevant - potentially. You, yourself, brought up political parties in the post where you railed against it.

  8. Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was oil on Europa, we would have been there 20 years ago.

  9. What part of.. by forty-2 · · Score: 0

    "Attempt no landing there" Didn't they understand?

    --
    never drink kool-aid from a big vat
  10. Re:ISIS Update: Germany under attack....!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. Muslim is the religion of peace. Real Muslim don't do bomb. STFU noob.

  11. Re:ISIS Update: Germany under attack....!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stadium evacuated after bomb threat. Angela Merkel was at stadium.

    Bomb found in train station.

    Do you think it was Muslims or Hari Krishna? My money is on Muslims.

    WAKE UP!!!!

    <SLASHTARD>I think it was Christians. And if Europe would just pass sensible gun control none of this would happen.</SLASHTARD>

  12. How much harder would it be by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2

    to land a sample extractor and launch it back to Earth?

    1. Re:How much harder would it be by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      sample extractor and launch it back to Earth?

      and risk bringing back killer bacteria we have no immunity for? We don't want to win the Galactic Darwin Award (although certain groups seem to be trying).

      Plus, sending enough fuel to escape the Jupiter system's gravity is not going to be trivial.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:How much harder would it be by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My way too many hours of Kerbal Space Program make me highly qualified (joke) to say that bringing something back is way harder than just putting stuff there. If you make a later stage twice as big, you need to make every stage leading up to it twice as big as well. Getting samples back up to orbit adds some nontrivially bigger engines and more fuel, even moreso when you think about landing that extra load, and making the orbiter come back to Earth may or may not need bigger engines but will certainly need more fuel. You could get rid of some of the lander's instrument packages and just process things back home, but that's risking an awful lot on a ton of new things that could go wrong... liftoff could fail, rendezvous could fail, anything could fail along the way home, and there's lots more radiation you have to eat.

      On-site analysis is much cheaper and more reliable.

    3. Re:How much harder would it be by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      to land a sample extractor and launch it back to Earth?

      Any craft that can extract a sample at Europa is a craft that can do Curiosity-grade microanalysis of the sample on site much more quickly and cost-effectively than it could do any Earth return.

    4. Re:How much harder would it be by Rei · · Score: 1

      And besides, you'll surely forget to bring a ladder or something and not realize it until you've hopped off to get samples, and then you have to send a whole new mission to rescue them.... invariably leaving your rescuers stranded as well....

      Solution: more struts.

      Are you listening, NASA? EUROPA CLIPPER NEEDS MORE STRUTS!

      --
      Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
    5. Re:How much harder would it be by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Solution: more struts.

      So they can make a ladder out of the extra struts?

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  13. Re:ISIS Update: Germany under attack....!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony is GLOCK come from AUSTRIA!! SAW come from Belgium!! Kalashnikov come from RUSSIA.

    Most guns from Europe!!!

  14. Re:ISIS Update: Germany under attack....!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add Serbia to that list. They are pumping out more fake Uzis than China is counterfeiting designer handbags.

  15. Europa is nice and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...but when are we going to embark on a mission of true impact: the manned space mission to the sun!

    Now, I know you have doubts, chief among them, "Isn't it really hot on the sun?" Fortunately, there is a simple solution: we will go at night.

    1. Re:Europa is nice and all... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      ...but when are we going to embark on a mission of true impact: the manned space mission to the sun!

      Now, I know you have doubts, chief among them, "Isn't it really hot on the sun?" Fortunately, there is a simple solution: we will go at night.

      Ah, the old ones truly are the best.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Re:ISIS Update: Germany under attack....!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And MP-5 is German.

  17. Master Sniffer? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Rather than a heavy multi-step risky crane landing system, why not spend the weight to juice up the in-orbit plume sniffer? If the moon pukes stuff toward the orbiter, then there is no need to land to sample it: sniff it while flying. Or, is there simply not enough material ejected to analyze well?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Can we send "Syrian refugees" there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With any luck we can get "Syrian refugees" to confuse "Europa" with "Europe".

    I'm betting Angela Merkel just changed her mind about letting more "Syrian refugees" into Germany...

    1. Re:Can we send "Syrian refugees" there? by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      Be careful about mocking the unfortunate. You may not be so lucky yourself one day.

    2. Re:Can we send "Syrian refugees" there? by Rei · · Score: 2

      If only we had some sort of seasonally-appropriate story about middle-eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless.

      --
      Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
  19. Was I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was I the only one who read the title and assumed this was an article by one of the "Syrian" "refugees" on its "holy" mission to destroy Europe?

  20. Inside the Mission to Europe: Syrian edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bunch of adult sunni men flooding into your country, there won't be any terrorists there!

  21. 2030: Endgame for Humans by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

    This delightful lander will arrive on Europa in 2028. How fascinating it will be for the human race to know--two years before we ourselves become extinct in 2030 ( that is, in 15 years ) because of Methane released from Arctic permafrost --what has been going on in Europa all these billions of years.

    1. Re:2030: Endgame for Humans by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      you'd think the religion of climate would have learned by now to stop making grandiose predictions in such short time frames. by the year $YEAR, we'll have no more $X and all $Y will be gone!!! let alone predicting the mass extinction of humans. that's just silly. i've lived through far too many of these false prophecies, and have come to see their real purpose. which is to give control over your life to their cult, or be labeled a denier/skeptic/heretic.

      and to question is forbidden.

    2. Re:2030: Endgame for Humans by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      The problem with Climate Change is your point of decision comes 10 years before you notice the effects. You're just another ostrich.

    3. Re:2030: Endgame for Humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely true. But if you act on everything there's no evidence for, you're at the mercy of anyone who wants more control or money. Also you look like an idiot when nothing happens. If, however, you enjoy being 'in the know' you can quietly climb on the next passing bandwagon. And yes, spreading guilt to everyone else has a certain appeal to certain types of people.

    4. Re:2030: Endgame for Humans by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Coward, Do you buy life insurance? Car insurance? Health insurance? Why the hell would you do that if it's just going to be wasted money. Oh, I get it. For certain eventualities that are so horrifying, you spend the money just in case.

  22. Yes we do by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Gees. Lots of them. We don't have inertial dampeners.

    Sure we do, it's called a combination of padding and sufficiently robust construction to withstand high G forces.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes we do by Rei · · Score: 2

      You do realize that you're talking about decelerating from a *minimum* of 1432 m/s (3426 mph) on impact. That's *if* you've already slowed down into the lowest possible orbit skimming right over the surface. Hitting straight from a Europa-intercept trajectory from Earth would be vastly faster.

      "Padding" is not going to cut it. These sorts of impacts convert their impactors to plasma.

      --
      Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
  23. Always a bright side by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we all die in 2030 it will sure be a relief we don't have to worry about the year 2038 bug!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. No Landing allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there. ET won't allow any sort of drilling and would certainly destroy any craft attempting to mess with Europa's ocean.

  25. necessitate a launch delay until late 2023 by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    Nothing necessitates 8 year to launch schedule except a tight program budget stretched out over time. There are decent Jupiter launch windows every 2 years or so:

    http://clowder.net/hop/railroa...

  26. lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

    If you had actually watched the video, you would see that the Chicken Little in question merely said that he couldn't imagine anyone alive in 2030. I can imagine the things this guy isn't capable of imagining which solves the actual problem stated in the video.

    And given that an elevated level of methane is not actually an existential threat (it just makes things a little warming, sea level a little higher, and interiors of continents a little drier), then not only is it not an existential threat, but there is a ready solution to the problem (namely, we can just move our climate sensitive species a few hundred km closer to the poles to compensate for the alleged extra global warming and maybe irrigate a little more) that doesn't require a lot of brain power to implement.

    In summary, grow a backbone.

    1. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      I watched the video carefully. Did you not note the "Wow" moment, when Nye takes off his bow tie, smokes a cigarette and drinks whiskey from the bottle? That bit of theatricality was there to emphasize how horrible the problem mentioned at that point: "Methane coming out of the Arctic permafrost" was brought up. If you know the slightest thing about chemistry you would not say that Methane is nothing to worry about. The hubris you expose--in assuming that we can somehow come up with a technology-based worldwide solution to reverse this runaway warming--should make you embarrassed. The video I linked to clearly shows that this problem is going to hit us much quicker than you think. Study the chemistry. Methane is much, much worse. Methane has already been documented as flooding up from the Artic. It's already too late--so it doesn't mean that anything you or I could do would change that.

    2. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure as hell will remind you of that in the 2040's.

    3. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Since you went with "Anonymous Coward", I will take it that you're too weak to even stand by your "opinion".

    4. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1
      It's sad you are too hysterical to think about this. There is no evidence to support this empty bit of theater - a situation which won't change in 2030.

      Methane has already been documented as flooding up from the Artic.

      No, it hasn't. The rate of methane emissions have increased to some degree, but that's not the same as your alleged "flooding".

    5. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I always like reading these predictions. Do you have a favorite escrow service? If so, would you be interested in making a wager - payout available on the first day of 2040? Make it worth my while and set it up. I'll accept any wager of 10,000 USD and higher. You can rescind your bet, at any time, with a 50% penalty - so long as the same option applies to me. I will need to vet the escrow service, prior to agreement, but I'm willing to do a 1:1 bet of $10,000 or more. It'll help you buy filtration devices for your family, if you win. If you'll put up $50,000 or higher then I'll offer you 100:125 odds. I'm willing to use any reputable escrow account of your choosing. Simply let me know when you've put the money up. It'll do your family some good and would be the responsible thing to do, for your family. You love your family, right? This is a certainty, right?

      I'm not an AC and I'm standing by my opinion. Let's see if you're willing to do the same.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      You're just uninformed: The great Arctic economic time bomb
      Methane meltdown: The Arctic timebomb that could cost us $60 Trillion

    7. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Have you done any intensive research into the subject of climate change? Your comments show you think the whole thing is a joke. I have another idea. You and I make a deal that if you're wrong and we obviously are in trouble then I can come and put a bullet in the back of your head for fighting people like me who were trying to do something before it's too late. I think I like that idea even if you don't agree to it.

    8. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I doubt you've the testicular fortitude for such. However, there's your chance to make some money and put your money where your mouth is. Instead, you go keyboard warrior and pretend to be tough. You're a joke, a caricature. If you're so certain then, well, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Any escrow service you want, so long as I can vet them to ensure they're insured and have a track record, and the money is yours for the taking. We can even agree on a lower percentage, say 10% of the population dies from methane releases when the ice melts? How about 1%? Yeah, I'll agree to 1% if you want.

      Put up the money or quit your yammering. It's obvious that you're going for the tough guy and hope I back down thing. Nope, not a coward. One of us doesn't dare to put their money where their mouth is... Which one of us is that, do you think? Which one of us is behaving immaturely and making unrealistic threats on the internet? Which one of us is demonstrating an ability to use logic and reason and which of us is behaving irrationally?

      I think we're pretty much done here. Until you're willing to put up the money to back your claim, you're dismissed. I've no further use for you.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Simply fuck you, asshole. You are just playing at life.

    10. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You are just playing at life.

      Well, now you've made me snicker. I shall deign you with my attention once again... So, I'm playing at life? Hmm... Okay...

      Yes, but I'm winning. You go down to the Navy base and earn enough money to make that wager yet? Your vulgarities are amusing but your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is, is telling. It must upset you, judging by your inability to control yourself - from threats to just vulgarities, that someone has called your bluff.

      The reality is, however, that you're just wanting to control the conversation. You're just wanting to be the big man in charge. You're just wanting to threaten, attempt to belittle, and dominate. This is usually because of an inferiority complex, often because of past abuses or trauma. You could ask for help, that'd be freely given. You'd have to first admit there's a problem and, today, you'd might not be able to do that.

      What you can do, is secure a lump sum payment for your family if something should happen and you end up being correct. If you're so certain then here's an escrow account that you can put your money up - you can trust them with your money.
      https://www.srsacquiom.com/ser...

      I'm open to any other escrow service that you're interested in - so long as I can vet it. Once you've put the money up, I'll match it, and then I'll even pay for the legal fees to get this taken care of. You're a cute lil' bugger, you Chicken Little, you... You do get all riled up when someone's unwilling to be controlled by you. The funny part is that you're probably thinking that I don't believe in AGW, that I do not care about the environment, and all sorts of other things. You couldn't be further from the truth but being wrong is habitual for you, isn't it?

      Instead of lashing out you could just ask for help. Mental illness isn't pretty and it's not easy to go it alone. The sooner you get help, the better off you'll be.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is not about me. Is it really this important to you to fuck with me? You are ridiculous. Rather than address the science at all you just play nonsense games. That you entertain yourself by making up these ridiculous comments shows me that you're again just a dabbler. Motivated people don't spend their time writing the long paragraphs of nonsense that you did. You're just ridiculous and not impressing a soul.

    12. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Is it really this important to you to fuck with me?

      Important? No. Fun? Yes. I'm retired and bored. It's fun to pull the strings and watch puppets dance. *snickers* You are, after all, the one who put the outlandish statement out there. I might as well get my mileage from it. You weren't doing anything better, where you? Me either. Contrary to popular opinion, retirement isn't all that it's cracked up to be - and I'm still stuck in Buffalo. So, well, you tossed me a softball and I figured I'd amuse at least one of us for a while.

      Impress? God, no. The last thing I want to do is impress you. Nothing personal but you're not worth it and, frankly, I'm not that impressive. What I do want to do, however, is amuse at least one of us. It's this or answer questions on AskUbuntu while listening to the missus prattle on about what I'm doing or what to do after dinner this evening. Here, she shoulder surfs and shakes her head and goes to play on her laptop. So, yeah, you soft-balled a silly bit about us all being dead due to methane and I figured I'd swing for the fences. Meh, it was amusing for a little while.

      I don't suppose you're in Buffalo and want to go out for dinner with us? We can growl at each other over the table. Hell, you can bring your gun and threaten to shoot me in the restaurant. It'll be great fun. You can bring the wife and kids. We're going to try the Texas de Brazil, we have a reservation for 7:00 but the lady who answered the phone indicated that they'd probably not be busy. I can call and see if they can have more seating. If you can't come to dinner then I'll probably have to cut this short or respond later in the evening.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Sir, So, if you're retired, you will be long dead when this problem kills us all. So, it wasn't enough that your generation did a large part to destroy the planet--but now you're making sure to get in your last bits of damage by doing your part to frustrate and interfere with those trying to solve the problem. In another context--but appropriate here--is the word traitor. You are a traitor to your country. You shame all of Buffalo and New York with your conduct and attitude.

    14. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Come back when you have evidence.

    15. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      This is definitive. Watch the whole thing.

    16. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Are you looking for concrete scientific information on the evidence or are you just looking to be convinced?

    17. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Evidence not bullshit. I thought I was pretty clear on what I wanted here. We would still see hysterical YouTube videos like this in the complete absence of climate change effects.

    18. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Are you looking for concrete scientific information on the evidence or are you just looking to be convinced?

      Yes. Now put up or shut up.

    19. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      So you didn't watch it, obviously. It was full of professional scientists giving evidence. You know, idiot, I don't need to prove this to you. The proof will be coming and then you will feel like an idiot, which you are.

    20. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Here, wiseass. Don't come back unless you have scientifically based evidence refuting what is in that video, which consists of dozens of actual scientists giving their evidence. Now, personally from your fellow human, I can tell you to fuck off and die.

    21. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1
      I skimmed it, but I'm not going to watch it. Even the more hysterical climate researchers can point to written research to back their claims.

      You know, idiot, I don't need to prove this to you.

      When 2030 comes, you just need to watch and learn.'

      The proof will be coming and then you will feel like an idiot, which you are.

      When the proof comes, then get back to me. Don't waste my time otherwise.

    22. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      No more YouTube videos. I'm done with that bullshit. Written words only.

    23. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      You and I make a deal that if you're wrong and we obviously are in trouble then I can come and put a bullet in the back of your head for fighting people like me who were trying to do something before it's too late.

      The thing you ignore here is that KGIII and I are also trying to do something before it's too late. We just disagree on what "do something" means and what the real threats are. IMHO, there are more important problems than panicking over nonexistent problems.

      The point of debate is not to piss yourself in public like an unthinking, panicking animal. It's to try to convince others. You aren't doing that. For this, you need to show evidence not an endless stream of YouTube hyperbole that contributes no actual information.

    24. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's not my job to spoonfeed you information. Go ahead and be part of the problem. Be surprised. Be ashamed.

    25. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      You're a shallow, low-effort thinker. I hope that you are gifted with a painful reminder, in the future, of your attitude--which is akin to tripping the firemen trying to carry buckets to put out the fire. You don't know, and are willing to risk everything on your "low-effort thinker" conclusion that, "No, I know better than all those scientists", the same ones that made the computer you're writing on now. Those scientists got everything else right but --"NO, can't be"--those same scientists are all wrong, all 99% of them are wrong this one time, when they say that Climate Change is about to Kill All Human life in 15 years as Methane gas bubbles up from the Arctic floor and then the permafrost.

    26. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Dude, As perhaps you have, I have followed this "debate" for years, in the same way I have followed the "debate" over things like creationism and the efficacy of supply-side economics. However, unlike the debate for these other things, faux pas can be reversed. Please tell me you have had the courtesy to consider what is at stake if you are wrong: extermination of the human race. The effects of melting methane hydrates on the Arctic sea floor are a game changer.

      Unless we solve this, this is certain death for me, you and our kids. You think I may be frothing at the mouth? Good! I am. We should be in crisis mode. Please stop sewing disinformation until you know the science for sure. You willing to risk your kids dying from global climate extermination? I'm not!

      Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington State Coast

      Warming Arctic Ocean Seafloor Threatens To Cause Huge Methane Eruptions
      Pacific Seafloor Methane is Escaping at Alarming Rates
      Enormous mounds of methane found under the Arctic sea: Underwater pingos may reveal 'worrying' clues about climate change

    27. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you have had the courtesy to consider what is at stake if you are wrong: extermination of the human race.

      ' Pascal's Wager and argument from ignorance fallacy is not a real argument. Your argument is not due courtesy.

      Unless we solve this, this is certain death for me, you and our kids.

      By what mechanism? There's not enough carbon available to cause a runaway Venus effect or indeed anything beyond an unpleasant warming of Earth. Even if we choose to assume that a lot of methane will be released in the coming centuries, so what? We still have a very nice place to live. And any real die off of humanity due to war or whatever immediately fixes the main problems.

      Please stop sewing disinformation until you know the science for sure.

      Science is evidence. Show your evidence. Notice that none of the links you provided support your argument that we're becoming extinct in 2030.

    28. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      You yet again provide nothing to think about except some cowardly hand wringing. Look at the actual evidence. Don't continue to be a fool.

    29. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      And it's not my job to agree with your delusions. If the world really was going to end from a methane clathrates tipping point, then we would see more now than a slightly elevated rate of natural methane emissions.

    30. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      The problem is NOT CO2, it is the Methane that is released from methane hydrates on the sea floor when the Arctic Sea ice melts. Arctic Methane Emergency Group
      Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb"
      Doomsday 2020: Arctic Methane Melting Now
      The Arctic Climate Threat No one is Talking About

    31. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      2030.

    32. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group? Just so they could meet and drink tea?
      The data presented here is extremely compelling, as is this.

    33. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      The problem is NOT CO2, it is the Methane that is released from methane hydrates on the sea floor when the Arctic Sea ice melts.

      Asserting that will happen is not the same as that happening. There are three obvious things which get ignored. First, methane levels just aren't that high now. Second, the additional pressure of 100 meters of water after the ending of the last glacial period plus the current run of increasing sea level. That stabilizes methane clathrates against significant rise in temperature. Third, consumption of methane in the environment. Just because it is assumed that methane has a significant lifespan in sea and air, doesn't mean it actually does.

    34. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?

      Because there's big money in crisis management.

    35. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you simply think that the Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb is just a bunch of nonsense, that these reportsArctic Methane Emergency Group.

    36. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

      Really. That's your explanation? That's the be-all and end-all of this problem? Scientists are faking it to make money?

    37. Re:lack of imagination != endgame by khallow · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you simply think that the Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb is just a bunch of nonsense, that these reportsArctic Methane Emergency Group.

      Yes, that is an accurate characterization of my opinion on the matter. To consolidate your other question

      on the matter:

      Do you wonder why they bothered to form a group called the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?

      Because there's big money in crisis management.

      Really. That's your explanation? That's the be-all and end-all of this problem? Scientists are faking it to make money?

      Again, yes. I don't think this has anything to do with actual science, but rather that hysteria and panic sells.