Congress Directs NASA To Study Europa Mission

[NASAFanboy]

Apparently, in the FY 2014 NASA budget was included an little tidbit that had me cheering like an excited fangirl at an One Direction concert.

NASA is going to Europa. Europa. Europa. Europa. EUROPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/space/the-final-frontiers-financial-limits.html?_r=0

Congress is pushing NASA in that direction. It allocated $1.345 billion to planetary sciences in the spending bill it passed last week  $127 million more than the administration had requested  and directed NASA to spend $80 million of it on preliminary design work for the Europa mission.

Also seen here, being reported by USA Today, if you still have doubts.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/spending-bill-would-preserve-major-nasa-missions/4480537/

$5.2 billion for science missions, including $80 million for a mission to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

What could this possibly mean for NASA?

Is it an step in the right direction? Is Congress once again softening up to Space Exploration and NASA?

Note that this is only an study, but yet again, Cassini-Hueygens was only an study back in the early 1990's, and it has been one of the most valuable NASA assets, giving us tons of data on Titan and Saturn, and performing the first landing on the Outer Planets. So was Curiosity, and so was the ISS, and so was every NASA-mission ever.

80 million is quite alot by NASA standards (The studies for New Horizon and Cassini costed less, and these two projects are both reality.). That's almost as much $$ given to study the ARM mission. Personally, I believe it may launch sometime around 2020 onboard an SLS (Which has already been suggested multiple times for an Europa Mission), or onboard something similar to an Delta IV heavy. If Congress keeps up the current trend (Likely, as most Congress members stay for dozens of terms in office), we could actually see plenty of deep-space exploration milestones in our lifetimes.

Edited February 8, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

What I'm reading here is

1.9 bn for SLS

1.2 bn for Orion

0.08 bn for Europa

[Duxwing]

Imagine: an SLS full of Europa payload. My mouth waters...

-Duxwing

[ZedNova]

Congress does something right for once.

[AngelLestat]

I dont understand, in some places said that it cost 80 millons and in other page said that it would cost 5 Billons the europa mission.

It would be only some fly by, not landing in europa.

I also read that the cost to operate curiosity this year it will be 67 millons? Just to move the joystick and pay some geologists to put an eye in the data? (That they would do it for free if they ask) heh, I know that these things has their cost.. But 67 millons!!

In my personal view I dont find mars so intesting.

I would prefer to see more missions to Europa, Titan, Encelado, Venus or Jupiter.

For example missions to venus are a lot cheaper than mars, it is more easy to colonize than mars. And give us a different planet view that we dont have, those help us to keep dreaming. Instead of see the same red martian rocks.

[SargeRho]

Reviving JIMO...That would be epic.

Excuse me? Venus easier to Colonise than Mars? Did you check the surface conditions recently? A comfortable 100 atmospheres with cozy warm 460°C in the shade, slight possibility of sulphuric acid rain on Venus. You cannot colonise Venus.

Edited February 8, 2014 by SargeRho

[Brotoro]

Melt through the ice!

[Kryten]

I dont understand, in some places said that it cost 80 millons and in other page said that it would cost 5 Billons the europa mission.

80 million is the cost allocated to finalise the design of the europa mission. 5 billion is the total cost of manufacturing and operating the spacecraft (a figure from a previous, more ambitious study-this one should be quite a lot lower).

Edited February 8, 2014 by Kryten

[AngelLestat]

ah.. that has more sense

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

I also read that the cost to operate curiosity this year it will be 67 millons? Just to move the joystick and pay some geologists to put an eye in the data? (That they would do it for free if they ask) heh, I know that these things has their cost.. But 67 millons!!

Hmm. I find that cheap.

Thats the equivalent of 2 NASCAR teams.

[Soda Popinski]

It's the equivalent of 0.5 cents per American per week for a year. Peanuts. Less than peanuts.

Now, $5 billion... that's big money. $0.32 per American per week for a year. Seriously, anything below $15 billion, I consider cheap.

[KASASpace]

Europa is one of those places where you gotta ask a question.

I want to know if there's at least Amino Acids there.

That means that life could occur.

Let's go, and find out.

Of course, 5 billion dollars is less than Apollo got, and Apollo only went to the moon...........

I don't like that.

I would hope Congress would just let NASA do there thing about this stuff. Like, seriously, it isn't that HARD, just expensive. (although hard to get a budget )

And if we did land, we should land near Conarama Chaos.

That place:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conamara_Chaos

Yeah, it's wikipedia, but it beats nothing!

[SFJackBauer]

I dont understand, in some places said that it cost 80 millons and in other page said that it would cost 5 Billons the europa mission.

According to the article, it is "$80 million of it on preliminary design work".

Just to move the joystick and pay some geologists to put an eye in the data? (That they would do it for free if they ask)

I hate to use internet slangs, but LOLWUT?

In my personal view I dont find mars so intesting.

I would prefer to see more missions to Europa, Titan, Encelado, Venus or Jupiter.

We need to learn to crawl before walk, and walk before running.

Instead of see the same red martian rocks.

Approx. 110 billion people were born, and died, or on Earth, since 50,000 BC. You are amongst the 2 billion or so that have the privilege of see the space being explored. If you thought from this point of view I'm sure you wouldn't be so bored of "seeing the same red martian rocks" every day.

[K^2]

Seriously, why Europa? Titan is a much more interesting target.

[Kryten]

Seriously, why Europa? Titan is a much more interesting target.

The planetary science decadal survey determined otherwise, but I've a feeling the fact a Jupiter mission would be inherently cheaper had a big influence on the priority selection.

[metaphor]

Seriously, why Europa? Titan is a much more interesting target.

We probably know more about Titan than Europa at this point. We even landed a probe there. Also, there's a possibility of finding Earthlike life on Europa unlike Titan.

I don't think a Europa probe would be cheaper (higher radiation environment, higher delta-v needed), but it would probably bring in more new science per dollar.

Edited February 8, 2014 by metaphor

[K^2]

Also, there's a possibility of finding Earthlike life on Europa unlike Titan.

That's precisely why mission to Titan would be infinitely more valuable. Europa can only support Earth-like life. Which means we can't exclude possibility of common origin of life on Europa and Earth even if we find it.

Titan, in contrast, shows strong evidence of processes consistent with metabolism on global scale. Now, it can easily be a natural geological process, but even if so, it's a process that can be used by a life form in an environment completely different from Terrestrial. Either way, we learn way more about possible life in other star systems from Titan than we can learn from anything we find on Europa. (And we are very likely to find squat there.)

The planetary science decadal survey determined otherwise, but I've a feeling the fact a Jupiter mission would be inherently cheaper had a big influence on the priority selection.

Titan is dramatically easier to land on than Europa. Not only does it have lower orbital speed, making it much easier to get to, but it has an atmosphere allowing no-power landing. Europa has virtually no atmosphere, meaning you'll have to do a powered landing. Titan allows you to deploy rovers, aqueous probes, and balloons, and you can do all 3 with the rocket you'd need to put just a lander on Europa. There is just no comparison.

As for the decadal survey, I can only conclude that it's influenced by politics more then science. Because claiming that we can learn more from dropping something on the surface on Europa than Titan is absurd. Perhaps, with the right equipment, we can find something worthwhile on Europa. That would require remote drilling equipment, all sorts of surveying equipment, a constellation of communication and survey satellites, and so on. In other words, we need to put more stuff on Europa than we've put on Mars and Moon combined in order for it to be worth the effort. On titan, one probe with the right equipment dropped in the right place can be enough, because everything of interest there is going to be right on the surface.

So again, no objective scientific survey would ever conclude that Europa is a higher priority than Titan.

[Kryten]

Titan is dramatically easier to land on than Europa. Not only does it have lower orbital speed, making it much easier to get to, but it has an atmosphere allowing no-power landing. Europa has virtually no atmosphere, meaning you'll have to do a powered landing. Titan allows you to deploy rovers, aqueous probes, and balloons, and you can do all 3 with the rocket you'd need to put just a lander on Europa. There is just no comparison.

None of these are relevant to the planned mission. It isn't going to enter Europa orbit, never mind land there.

[jwenting]

was probably a typo and they're going to Europe, for a conference with ESA.

Much cheaper, just buy some plane tickets from Delta Airlines and hope you get through the TSA checkpoints (which might be more technically challenging than going to Europa in ways).

[AngelLestat]

I hate to use internet slangs, but LOLWUT?

If you would quote my full sentence like this:

"I also read that the cost to operate curiosity this year it will be 67 millons? Just to move the joystick and pay some geologists to put an eye in the data? (That they would do it for free if they ask) heh, I know that these things has their cost.. But 67 millons.."

Your answer would lose sense, dont you?

Of course that it has that price, all security measures, all control procedures, the chain delegation of tasks (id´tk how it is the real name in english) from one companie to another which everyone charge their 40% or 50% plus taxes, etc.

So if justify or not, does not change the fact that seems a lot.

Becouse we all know that if there is the need to cut the budget to the maximun, it could be done with much less.

Nascar example also seems a lot, but it does not mean that is not justify, remake those super cars for each race is not cheap.

We need to learn to crawl before walk, and walk before running.

I guess in most cases, we need learn to float before walk.

Approx. 110 billion people were born, and died, or on Earth, since 50,000 BC. You are amongst the 2 billion or so that have the privilege of see the space being explored. If you thought from this point of view I'm sure you wouldn't be so bored of "seeing the same red martian rocks" every day.

I guess everybody would be agree with me if you ask them, what they prefer to watch, another mars picture or venus, titan, europe, jupiter clouds, etc.

We probably know more about Titan than Europa at this point. We even landed a probe there. Also, there's a possibility of finding Earthlike life on Europa unlike Titan.

I don't think a Europa probe would be cheaper (higher radiation environment, higher delta-v needed), but it would probably bring in more new science per dollar.

Now nasa is using some CNT sheets to shield against electromagnetic radiation. But I guess Nasa wants to send many probes to europa to planning the main future mission under the ice..

That would be the expensive one.

Encelado also has a high chance of having life with all the water geisser which make their way through the ice. The ice also help to block radiation.

Titan, in contrast, shows strong evidence of processes consistent with metabolism on global scale. Now, it can easily be a natural geological process, but even if so, it's a process that can be used by a life form in an environment completely different from Terrestrial.

You mean since we know for sure than the ADN can be made with arsenic instead of phosphorus. Besides the possible evidence of some kind of methabolism.

Is a lot more easy to find or discard if there is life in Titan with cheap mission than the needed to Europe.

Edited February 8, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Albert VDS]

Just a little nitpick: Huygens was a probe made and operated by ESA, it only hitched a ride with Cassini.

[K^2]

None of these are relevant to the planned mission. It isn't going to enter Europa orbit, never mind land there.

Could we, please, start looking at the big picture? This mission isn't designed to land or enter orbit, so we must disregard challenges and benefits of landing there? Then why the hell are we even sending anything there in the first place? The only reason for such a mission is to study the moon so that we know if we should send a landers and/or orbiters there, and if so, how we should go about it. That's the whole frigin' point. Because, why else? Because we think it will make for some awesome desktop wallpapers?

We have a number of potential targets for unmanned exploration in this Solar system. Titan and Europa are definitely high on priority. If we are deciding which one we are sending a probe to, we should be thinking about what it means in terms of future exploration. Whichever one we chose, it will make preparations for any subsequent missions that much easier, besides all the information we get from this mission directly. And there is no doubt that we can get more information from Titan than Europa when we do start sending orbiters and landers.

Not only that, but even a single fly-by mission, without any follow up, would be more valuable with Titan as the target. We might be able to learn something about Europa's oceans, if they do in fact exist, with an orbital probe. A fly-by is going to give us very little info on that. A fly-by mission of Titan can give us additional info on its weather, geological processes, and atmospheric composition. Each of these, by itself, is way more valuable than what we can get from Europa.

Finally, say we really do forget about everything else, like you suggest, and just focus on the easiest target for a fly-by mission. It's still Titan. Europa is much lower in gravitational well, meaning that any probe you launch will be passing by at higher velocities, requiring higher precision, and giving much less time to do any data gathering. Or getting these awesome desktop wallpaper shots. Because if you aren't planning to land there any time soon, that's all its going to be good for anyways.

As for getting to Saturn or Jupiter from Earth, it's pretty much the same thing. Which means Titan is easier to get to, any data we get from it is more valuable, it will be easier to organize consequent landing/orbiter missions to, and the data we get from these will also be more valuable. There is not a single sound scientific reason to go to Europa before going to Titan. None. It's all politics and spin, as usual.

[Albert VDS]

It's because Hubble found plumes of water erupting from Europa.

[metaphor]

Not only that, but even a single fly-by mission, without any follow up, would be more valuable with Titan as the target. We might be able to learn something about Europa's oceans, if they do in fact exist, with an orbital probe. A fly-by is going to give us very little info on that. A fly-by mission of Titan can give us additional info on its weather, geological processes, and atmospheric composition. Each of these, by itself, is way more valuable than what we can get from Europa.

But.. we already have a spacecraft that is currently doing flybys of Titan every couple of months (Cassini).

Finally, say we really do forget about everything else, like you suggest, and just focus on the easiest target for a fly-by mission. It's still Titan. Europa is much lower in gravitational well, meaning that any probe you launch will be passing by at higher velocities, requiring higher precision, and giving much less time to do any data gathering. Or getting these awesome desktop wallpaper shots. Because if you aren't planning to land there any time soon, that's all its going to be good for anyways.

As for getting to Saturn or Jupiter from Earth, it's pretty much the same thing. Which means Titan is easier to get to, any data we get from it is more valuable, it will be easier to organize consequent landing/orbiter missions to, and the data we get from these will also be more valuable. There is not a single sound scientific reason to go to Europa before going to Titan. None. It's all politics and spin, as usual.

The proposed Europa mission might do something like the Europa Clipper, which means multiple flybys of Europa, mapping it from every angle. It doesn't really take that much delta-v to get into Europa orbit with help from gravity assists by the other Galilean moons. (something like 500 m/s to get captured by Jupiter + 300 m/s to get captured by Europa)

Also, I haven't heard of any metabolic processes on Titan. What are they?

[Idobox]

Also, I haven't heard of any metabolic processes on Titan. What are they?

There is hydrogen being generated in the higher atmosphere, but the concentration decreases faster than expected when you get closer to the ground.

If this is not a measurement error, it could mean something on the surface is consuming this hydrogen, most likely some abiotic catalytic reaction, but possibly life.

Lots of assumptions, no real proof of metabolic activity, just an unexplained fact. Of course, finding life on Titan would be a tremendous discovery.

Could we, please, start looking at the big picture? This mission isn't designed to land or enter orbit, so we must disregard challenges and benefits of landing there? Then why the hell are we even sending anything there in the first place? The only reason for such a mission is to study the moon so that we know if we should send a landers and/or orbiters there, and if so, how we should go about it. That's the whole frigin' point. Because, why else? Because we think it will make for some awesome desktop wallpapers?

As exciting as the idea of life on Titan is, Europa still is the safest bet.

Before claiming the NASA is doing it all wrong, it could be a good idea to wait and see what their mission ideas are. If a multiple fly-by mission is able to determine for good if there is liquid water on Europa, and verify if there are indeed giant ice-blades near the equator, it would indeed be a very valuable mission.

Another fly-by mission to Titan would not teach us much more on how to land there, since we already know how to land there. The choice is not between a Titan landing and a Europa fly-by.

The biggest question, in my mind, is what could a NASA fly-by mission do that JUICE can't?

Anyway, they got a small budget to do a study, they're not spending all their money on Europa.