backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 74 comment(s) - last by onwisconsin.. on Jan 11 at 1:13 AM

The geological interior of Europa
Joint Russian-ESA mission to take off for Europa in 2015

Scientifically, Jupiter's moon Europa is one of the most intriguing bodies in the solar system. Slightly smaller than our own moon, it is thought to possess vast liquid oceans under a surface of ice.

That liquid water means the potential for life. And Russia plans to search for it, with newly announced plans to explore Europa and search for simple life forms. The mission, announced by Lev Zelyony, head of the Space Research Institute, is to be conducted in conjunction with the European Space Agency, starting in the year 2015.

The mission, code-named Laplace, will land on Europa in one of the many fissures on the moon's crust. It will then melt some of the ice, and conduct its search.

"Where there is ocean", says Zelyony, "life could arise. In this respect, the Europa satellite is probably the most intriguing place in the solar system".

Russia's space program all but collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The nation's new-found prosperity is allowing it to revive that program. Moscow recently signed an agreement with Washington to provide NASA with instrumentation for scanning the Moon and Mars for water.

The mission to the moon is due for launch this year, with the Mars mission following in 2009.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
very cool
By Screwballl on 1/8/2008 11:09:26 AM , Rating: 3
This is very cool that they are looking at other bodies other than our own moon or the planets themselves... now we just need to get some sort of sub-warp engines invented so satellites and man can go farther faster....
Will be interesting to see what they find on Europa




RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 5
We invented the drive needed to quickly travel anywhere in the solar system back in the 1960s -- nuclear propulsion. Anti-nuclear sentiment shut down the programs though.

Despite the clear benefits, it's unclear if the US will ever launch a nuclear-propelled mission again. China or Russia perhaps...both seem considerably more practical when it comes to such matters.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another example of progress put on hold by the environmentalist lobby.

Luckily, once we create less ballistic ways of getting into space, they won't have any way to complain about taking nuclear material into space to use as fuel.

The International Space Station should be nuclear powered as well.


RE: very cool
By Combatcolin on 1/8/2008 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 3
If we used your back garden as a launch site, would you still be pro Nuke Spacecraft?

Until someone comes up with a much safer launch vehicle, Mr Burns private pension fund is not really a suitable choice.

Pushing Ice, by Alistair reynolds is a good "realistic" space opera, where the mining ship is Nuclear powered - good book.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 5
At one point, my backyard essentially *was* a launch site, and yes I was still pro Nuke.

The safety issue is wholly overblown. Even with 1960s technology and materials, we were capable of building spacecraft that could withstand catastrophic reentry into the earth's atmosphere without releasing nuclear materials. Remember Apollo 13? The unused moon lander which burned up on reentry to the earth, contained an RTG (radioisotope nuclear generator), which survived reentry as designed, and landed harmlessly in the ocean.


RE: very cool
By Polynikes on 1/8/2008 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard anyone complaining about nuclear-powered subs and battleships chugging through the ocean... Oh yeah, that's because they don't give off any radiation or drop nuclear waste everywhere they go. I think it's a safe bet a nuclear-powered space vehicle wouldn't either. Test vehicles will be tested far away from people, I'm sure.

I'd offer my back yard for a non-test launch, but it's a bit too small.


RE: very cool
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2008 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 1
Uh yes. I lived in Florida most of my life. And not far from Kennedy. As well as worked out there. I've been to numerous launches out on the strip of land between the Air Force Base and Space Center (requires a pass) and even a landing once (family and press only).


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 12:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the environmental lobby is solely responsible for nuclear propulsion not having taken off (pun intended). The cost and difficulty of testing theoretical space propulsion methods have absolutely nothing to do with it (seething sarcasm intended as well).

Look, get off this imaginary trip that the environmental lobby has anything to do with the lack of nuclear propulsion. We have nuclear powered subs and ships. We have weapons made of depleted uranium. Auto makers are experimenting with the viability of nuclear cars. The problem is that with most applications, it is extremely expensive to safely harness, test, and implement nuclear technology. These are human and monetary limitations.

If you want to be pissed someone for not doing this already, be pissed at the governments and corporations (who have far more money and influence than any environmental group) who are unwilling to invest in it. You want me to prove they have more influence than environmental groups? They have actually convinced you it's the fault of environmental groups that nuclear technology isn't already in mass use. And the sad truth is, it already is in mass use- in the military.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:02:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "The cost and difficulty of testing theoretical space propulsion methods have absolutely nothing to do with it (seething sarcasm intended "

Sarcasm aside, there really isn't room for debate on this. Nuclear propulsion wasn't "theoretical" even back in the 1960s. The US launched one nuclear-powered satellite, and the Soviets launched several. NASA had a full-fledged program (Orion) to test nuclear-pulse propulsion, which the ABM treaty-- widely pushed in the US by anti-nuclear elements-- illegalized further work upon.

For long-range space missions, RTG-powered probes have been used many times. They are cheaper and more effective than chemical or solar-powered alternatives. Yet every time one launches, there are protest demonstrations at NASA offices, and tens of thousands of letters written to Congress.

In fact, federal environmental regulations require a period for public comments before each and every nuclear-powered mission, with a federal review board to review them and then approve or deny the mission. This explains why the Mars Rovers were solar powered, despite NASA's preference for RTGs, a decision that limited their landing site and operating capabilities severely.

Here's a link to the ongoing debate on whether NASA's 2009 Rover will be allowed to be nuclear-powered, and the consequences should it not.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_0610...


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:13:36 PM , Rating: 3
So you're telling me that the ABM treaty had more to do with environmentalism than politics? The threat of nuclear holocaust took a back seat to the environmentalist groups?

Now I understand enough about history to know that the Soviet Union was not going to bomb us, nor were we going to bomb them- but the fear of it still existed. I'm sorry, ABM had more to do with political will and fear rather than the fact we might contaminate a few trees.

Also, nuclear power is different from nuclear propulsion, most methods of practical nuclear propulsion are no more than proposals.

Besides, ABM treaties don't seem to stop us from using depleted uranium on the battlefield or from propelling submarines through the water. This is all about will and cost.


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:30:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "So you're telling me that the ABM treaty had more to do with environmentalism "

Correction, it was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that banned further work on Orion. And yes, it was largely (but not entirely) motivated by the anti-nuclear lobby in the US.

The case of RTG-powered spacecraft is even clearer. There are no additional development costs or political considerations here. RTGs are *already* cheaper and more effective than any other alternatives. The missions that have flown without them have done so because of public outcry, plain and simple.

> "ABM treaties don't seem to stop us from using depleted uranium on the battlefield or from propelling submarines through the water"

But the NTBT did explicitly ban the use of nuclear detonations in space.

> "This is all about will and cost."

The will of a nation is defined by its people. As long as the world "nuclear" carries such unsavory connotations, there will be no government will to deploy nuclear powered spacecraft, despite the clear advantages.

As for cost, nuclear-powered missions are, according to NASA, significantly cheaper per mission capability than those of any other. Nothing is more costlier than chemical-based rockets, which are essentially gigantic semi-controlled bombs. Chemical propulsion is so inefficient that nearly all the weight must be fuel. The space shuttle weighs some 4.5 million pounds...and can only boost some 8,000 lbs to geosynchronous orbit.

We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on shuttle operations and now we're due to retire it...and replace it with yet another chemical-powered model.

For a shuttle replacement, A NERVA-style nuclear variant would cost perhaps 2.5X as much to develop as the current proposal, but would pay that back in less than 10 years in lower operating costs. It would also have a far higher payload and significantly lower turnaround time.

But the public would never hear of it.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have no argument that chemical overall is inefficient and more costly in the long term. In fact, I would like to see nuclear power in cars and in more places.

My argument was that the cost of development is more costly. The thing is, chemical combustion is an established method of propulsion- which, for most applications (I wasn't just talking about space flight) is less costly due to the fact that its infrastructure is established.

Further, the Anti-Nuclear groups are NOT the same as environmentalist groups. I was talking about the Environmentalist groups specifically.

Lastly, political will does not always come from public will, even in the history of the United States, but I won't diverge from the topic at hand to make my point. The NBTB doesn't make much sense from a defense point of view- we permit uranium in the battlefield on earth but not for propulsion in space? That clause was put in place by governments who thought that eachothers intention was to annihilate one another- this clause is most definitely not a case of public will.

And just to illustrate my point yet again- we USE URANIUM ON EARTH. If the Anti-Nuclear lobby was as influential as everyone seems to think, this wouldn't happen.


RE: very cool
By kenji4life on 1/8/2008 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
I can see your point. Although anyone can agree that the largest group against nuclear power is the environmentalists, I ponder if anyone considered the possible benefit of oil companies on nuclear bans. The oil companies would lose billions, maybe trillions of dollars if nuclear power was allowed to be developed to the point where it provides power to a large majority of homes, transportation, and exploration.

We all know how powerful the oil lobby is. This of course certainly doesn't dismiss the fact that the environmentalist groups have been the most pressing and outspoken group, within the population of anti-nuclear sentiment. There are also some conservatives (although they were in the minority) who were dissuade by the costs, not seeing the long term benefit.

Never overlook the fact, though that fear is always the biggest motivation in the resistance to change.


RE: very cool
By Ringold on 1/8/2008 6:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further, the Anti-Nuclear groups are NOT the same as environmentalist groups. I was talking about the Environmentalist groups specifically.


Say what?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns

"DANGEROUS, HIGH-RISK, MELTDOWN, CATASTROPHE . . . NO NEW NUKES"

Right along aside "environmentalist" issues.

quote:
And just to illustrate my point yet again- we USE URANIUM ON EARTH.


We don't use enriched uranium on earth -- except in nuclear power plants, and bombs.. I don't see your point.

quote:
My argument was that the cost of development is more costly.


The US managed, with 1960s technology, to test-fire a prototype of the sort Masher describes, so not sure why that argument holds water if the benefits are clear and environmentalist groups or lack of political will isn't in fact the primary reason for it not having momentum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kiwi-A_Prime_At...

I'm impressed anyone actually has the kahunas to suggest anything other than politics being behind its failure, frankly. It wouldn't be the first good idea crushed by democracy.


RE: very cool
By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
"If you want to be pissed someone for not doing this already, be pissed at the governments and corporations (who have far more money and influence than any environmental group) who are unwilling to invest in it. You want me to prove they have more influence than environmental groups? They have actually convinced you it's the fault of environmental groups that nuclear technology isn't already in mass use."

Owned... Really great point. Your comment says it all, end of story, negative rebuttal automatically dismissed.


RE: very cool
By onelittleindian on 1/8/2008 1:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Negative rebuttal automatically dismissed.
Cool, saves you the problem of actually thinking, doesn't it?

Governments do whats popular. Nuclear isn't. The anti-nuclear lobby killed nuclear power and nuclear spacecraft both. Thank god we already had nuclear ships and subs by the 1960s, or they'd have never been developed either.


RE: very cool
By RogueLegend on 1/8/2008 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Again, we utilize depleted uranium as bombs. Most methods of utilizing depleted uranium in weapons weren't developed until the 80's.

So, we developed in use weaponry after the 60's- does it really make sense that we'd develop nuclear based weapons and not propulsion?


RE: very cool
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2008 1:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, we utilize depleted uranium as bombs"

Err, depleted uranium isn't used as a bomb, its used as a penetrator. And DU is actually LESS radioactive than the natural uranium found within the earth. It is by no stretch of the imagination a "nuclear" weapon.