NASA confirms mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa to explore its icy oceans

[GenesisNemesis]

https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/20/nasa-c...cy-oceans/

 NASA has confirmed a mission to Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, will indeed happen. The mission was initially explored starting in 2017, with the space agency looking for reports on how it might proceed, and now NASA has said it will go ahead and move to the key step of finalizing mission design, which will then lead to actually building the spacecraft that will make the trip, and the science payload it’ll carry on board.

The goal of the mission, which is codenamed “Europa Clipper,” is to find out whether the icy natural satellite orbiting Jupiter could sustain life, and also explore whether it might be colonizable or habitable. Plus, we’ll definitely learn a lot more about Europa with an up-close-and-personal exploration.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They need to examine the output from the fissures before they drill. That will tell them a lot without too much fancy equipment. ("Fancy" as in "it's just a spaceship, nothing fancy.")

[grympy]

Fascinating.

The cost bothers me in terms of feasibility.

The cost of colonisation, assuming Europa can sustain life. I assume that means say a breathable atmosphere and the ability to grow food.

As an ignorant punter , my first thoughts are NOT anything like say the recent film. 'The Martian'

What is expected net gain for humanity, rather than country specific political gain?

I think It's fantastic . However, if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know, FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

[Deesse23]

What if they find a monolith, a black monolith, with the exact dimensions of 1,2,4?

[The Kerbinator]

What if they find a monolith, a black monolith, with the exact dimensions of 1,2,4?

That'd be no biggie. Now if they find one with the exact dimensions of 1,4,9...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fascinating.

The cost bothers me in terms of feasibility.  

The cost of colonisation, assuming Europa can sustain life. I assume that means say a breathable atmosphere and the ability to grow food.

As an ignorant punter , my first thoughts are NOT anything like say the recent film. 'The Martian'  

What is expected net gain for humanity, rather than  country specific political gain?  

I think It's fantastic . However,  if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know,  FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

The US spend more on military in one year than the whole NASA budget for the past fifty years. So you're bothered by the wrong things.

[Deesse23]

What if they find a monolith, a black monolith, with the exact dimensions of 1,2,4?

That'd be no biggie. Now if they find one with the exact dimensions of 1,4,9...

Oh, was it 1,4,9?

[PopeyesPappy]

The US spend more on military in one year than the whole NASA budget for the past fifty years. So you're bothered by the wrong things.

Sadly true. 

NASA budget 1958-2019: $624,442,000,000
DoD budget 2019: $693,058,000,000

The Dod got $68,616,000,000 more this year than NASA has in its entire 61 year history. If the US DoD was a country, its 2019 budget would have ranked it 21st in GDP. Bigger than Argentina.

[madog]

 

I think It's fantastic . However,  if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know,  FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

(time warp) "Yeah, why spend money on science when people are dying from small pox" Oh wait 

[madog]

@grympy

PS ... estimated tithes to US churches a year 50 billion (give or take billions) ... Nasa 22 billion ...

Who do you think contributed the most to our knowledge on Climate change?

Who would you bet on to contribute to any solutions?

[madog]

University of Tampa study, we could get up to $83.5 billion of additional revenue if religious institutions paid into the government’s coffers like the rest of us. 

From several sources the cost of religious tax exemptions is between 75-85 billion a year  ... Maybe tax the churches and triple the Nasa funds 

[Inkubus]

Fascinating.

The cost bothers me in terms of feasibility.  

The cost of colonisation, assuming Europa can sustain life. I assume that means say a breathable atmosphere and the ability to grow food.

As an ignorant punter , my first thoughts are NOT anything like say the recent film. 'The Martian'  

What is expected net gain for humanity, rather than  country specific political gain?  

I think It's fantastic . However,  if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know,  FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

Where does the word colonization appear in those articles?
It doesn't, because the idea is utterly insane and here's why.

From the article:

...unlike Curiosity and other long-term surface explorers, this lander probably would only last a few weeks before getting fried by the immense amount of radiation coming off Jupiter.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Probably a reflexive post.

[grympy]

"Where does the word colonization appear in those articles? "

Second paragraph, article cited by GenesisNemisis.

Well, OK, the word used is 'colonizable'

"The goal of the mission, which is codenamed “Europa Clipper,” is to find out whether the icy natural satellite orbiting Jupiter could sustain life, and also explore whether it might be colonizable or habitable. "

Or did I perhaps misunderstand?

[Inkubus]

Whoops, my bad. I followed the other two links:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-...l-for-life

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/09/nasas-...i-fi-pulp/

One is NASA the other is copypasta and the main one is clickbaity bollocks.

[Paleophyte]

Fascinating.

The cost bothers me in terms of feasibility.  

The cost of colonisation, assuming Europa can sustain life. I assume that means say a breathable atmosphere and the ability to grow food.

As an ignorant punter , my first thoughts are NOT anything like say the recent film. 'The Martian'  

What is expected net gain for humanity, rather than  country specific political gain?  

I think It's fantastic . However,  if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know,  FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

Where does the word colonization appear in those articles?
It doesn't, because the idea is utterly insane and here's why.

From the article:

...unlike Curiosity and other long-term surface explorers, this lander probably would only last a few weeks before getting fried by the immense amount of radiation coming off Jupiter.

Spot on. Colonizing Europa is for idiots. It orbits within Jupiter's radiation belts, so the radiation on Europa's surface is ~2000 times stronger than Earth's sea-level dosage. Without very heavy duty radiation shielding half your colonists would be dead or dying within a month. The radiation is exceptionally high energy, so the only long-term solution would be to build a base a kilometer or so beneath the surface. Then you get into the joys of having a base embedded in ice that is constantly undergoing plastic deformation. You'd either need bendy corridors and modular construction with absurd maintenance problems or ridiculously strong materials to keep from being crushed.

The gravity's too low, the atmosphere is near-nonexistent, and the only feasible source of power would be nuclear. And it may already be inhabited, in which case there's no way in hell you'll be allowed to build a colony there. Having spent a few trillion dollars flinging colonists, base, and reactor out to Europa you'll rediscover the first three rules of real estate. Location. Location. Location. Europa isn't anywhere terribly useful so the whole exercise is pretty pointless.

Looks like more rubbish pop-sci writing where the author couldn't tell the difference between habitability (by critters that evolved on Europa) and colonization (by humans that evolved on Earth). Or possibly the author didn't care.

[grympy]

Fascinating.

The cost bothers me in terms of feasibility.  

The cost of colonisation, assuming Europa can sustain life. I assume that means say a breathable atmosphere and the ability to grow food.

As an ignorant punter , my first thoughts are NOT anything like say the recent film. 'The Martian'  

What is expected net gain for humanity, rather than  country specific political gain?  

I think It's fantastic . However,  if I had my druthers I'd druther the billions of dollars be spent on something a bit more pressing, such as, I don't know,  FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

The US spend more on military in one year than the whole NASA budget for the past fifty years. So you're bothered by the wrong things.

 Perhaps , but surely it's partly  relative?  

It is my understanding that the  US has spent in excess of $US1  Trillion on the recent  and ongoing wars in the Middle East. So even 1%  spent on NASA is still in the billions .I still  think the US has more pressing needs for that  NASA money .

HAVING SAID THAT, it is my understanding that Dwight Eisenhower warned America about the potential danger from the military industrial complex. He was ignored.

That since 1950, the US has been almost continuously involved in armed conflict somewhere . Currently, the country seems to be moving swimmingly towards armed conflict within the US.  

Quite a few years ago, a friend made the observation that "The US today is like the last 45 minutes of the fall of the Roman empire" . At the time, similar sentiments  were shared by Gore Vidal,  one of America's best known public intellectuals.

If you really want to see how your country is going, see how it treats those on the margins; the  young, the old, the sick, the poor and veterans. 

This has occurred to me,  a foreigner, living 12,000 miles away. Surely Americans must have had a similar  thoughts.:  WHAT IF the US took even 10% of the money spent on war (not 'defence', for  fuck sake!)  ======and  instead spent it on say, schools or Veteran' s Affairs, or the horribly broken health system --Perhaps make the daring move of looking at countries which have health systems which actually work, such as Canada and Australia .

[madog]

 
Perhaps , but surely it's partly  relative? 

How is it relative?

The spin offs of war is pain and suffering ..

The spin offs of Nasa is understanding and scientific advancement  ...

- Nasa  ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

- You can fill in war  ....

Your thinking taken to its conclusion and we would still be living in caves ....

[PopeyesPappy]

This has occurred to me,  a foreigner, living 12,000 miles away. Surely Americans must have had a similar  thoughts.:  WHAT IF the US took even 10% of the money spent on war (not 'defence', for  fuck sake!)  ======and  instead spent it on say, schools or Veteran' s Affairs, or the horribly broken health system --Perhaps make the daring move of looking at countries which have health systems which actually work, such as Canada and Australia .

My guess would be that as a foreigner living 12,000 miles away, you have never really looked at what the US spends on schools, veterans affairs, or healthcare. 10% of the Department of Defense budget right now would be about $62.5 billion. Of the three options you listed the only one that amount would make a significant difference to is veterans affairs. It would be about a 30% increase. While that would help, it probably wouldn't fix all that ails veterans affairs here. 

The US already spends more per country per student on education than almost any other country. We are ranked third in spending per student behind only Norway and Switzerland. We already spend almost as much on education as we do on our military. 10% of the WAR budget would be about an 11% increase in education. Poor performance of US students on standardized tests has a lot more to do with poverty in our homes than spending on education. Throwing more money at education isn't going to fix that. 

As far as healthcare goes we spend 5 times more on that already than we do "WAR". Once again we spend more per person than almost any other country. 10% of the DoD budget amounts to less than 2% of our healthcare spending. Most years a 2% increase in healthcare spending wouldn't even account for inflation much less fix the problem. The problem with our healthcare system isn't spending. It's the expense. We can't fix our healthcare system without reducing the cost. Right now a single payer sysem would more than double all federal spending. Rich people alone don't make enough money every year to pay that bill so that means extreme tax increases for everyone. We are talking taxes in excess of 50% of all income on all individuals to pay the bill. That would be a great way to crash the economy and push poor people even further into poverty. Somehow I don't see that helping much. I guess the Fed could just print money to pay the bill, but then we'd just be Venezuela all over again.

[grympy]

@PopeyesPappy

"My guess would be that as a foreigner living 12,000 miles away, you have never really looked at what the US spends on schools, veterans affairs, or healthcare"

Straw man fallacy .I made no mention of the current money spent, nor is that relevant. That the systems I mentioned are all in dire need of massive spendings shows quite clearly, that the current amount spent is simply not enough.

As it turns out, I have (had, most are dead now) a lot of relatives in the US, now mainly in California. I have listened to them complain about the things I mentioned for over 40 years, and I do read US News, every day.

I have a good idea of how badly Vets are treated in the US. Same here. Although only an ex grunt, not a vet, I have had experience with our own Department of Veteran's Affairs.

I'm aware that millions of Americans do not have adequate health coverage. That even if you have private health insurance that it will run out if you have an illness over years. Not in Oz, or Canada or the UK. In Oz, we have Medicare ,universal health care. It is funded in part by a 2.5% income tax levy . Plus the cost of most prescription medicines is capped at $33 a script. As a pensioner, I pay $6.50 .

I'm aware that millions of Americans end up with student loans of $100k plus, which cripple them financially for years .Not is OZ, Canada, or the UK.

That US teachers are grossly underpaid. Eg Saw an article yesterday where I think it was in Illinois, teacher's salaries were to be INCREASED to $40k a year. The average in Oz is over $100k .

That your Social Security system is contributory, and it is claimed there will not be enough money to pay say the millennials when they reach pension age . Our Welfare and Pension systems are universal and non contributory.

I won't even start on your prisons.

I do not resile from my original comments. America is one of the richest countries on earth. Its systems of health, education and welfare are fucked. Of course, not all problems can be fixed by throwing money at them . However spending badly needed funds in those areas would be great start.


Perhaps before making more fatuous claims about your various systems, have a bit of a look at how other developed nations handle those areas. I assure you, the US does not do well in comparison. Given its great wealth, I think the US should be a world leader in all of the areas I mentioned . It ain't anywhere near being a leader .

That's all I have to say on this matter. Have the last word by all means.


PS in dollar terms, the US spends more on war than any other country on earth.

[PopeyesPappy]

@PopeyesPappy

"My guess would be that as a foreigner living 12,000 miles away, you have never really looked at what the US spends on schools, veterans affairs, or healthcare"

Straw man fallacy   .I made no mention of the current money spent, nor is that relevant.  That the systems I mentioned are all in dire need of massive spendings shows quite clearly, that the current  amount spent is simply not enough.

How much money we are spending right now on veterans, education and healthcare is 100% relevant to your claim that the US could take a relatively small portion of our defense spending and fix some of what I agree are our worst problems. The fact that you continue to claim that these things need massive spending just reinforces my belief that while you recognize the problems, you don’t have a clue about the causes.

As it turns out,  I  have (had, most are dead now)   a lot of relatives in the US, now mainly in California.  

And I have lived here for more than 50 years. I’ve also lived in Germany and Korea. I have spent a fair amount time in other parts of Europe and, spent time working in Russia, China, India, and Brazil. I’ve even been to Australia, but I don’t claim a couple of weeks in the general vicinity of Canberra make me an expert on the Australian economy and what ails it.

I have listened to them complain about the things I mentioned for over 40 years, and I do read US News, every day.

Well there is part of the problem right there. Most US network news broadcasts are more concerned with ratings than facts.

I have a good idea of how badly Vets are treated in the US.  Same here. Although only an ex grunt, not a vet, I have had  experience with our own Department of Veteran's Affairs.

I’m a veteran. My brother is veteran. My father was veteran of two wars. Three of my six uncles are/were veterans. My grandparents weren’t because their generation fell between WWI and WWII. That is if you don’t count my mother’s youngest aunt who was a nurse at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attached. My great grandparents didn’t serve either because their age group fell between our civil war and WWI, but their father’s and uncles fought on both side of our civil war. If you go back far enough some of my ancestors fought in our revolutionary war.

My brother and my mom’s youngest brother both get their healthcare from the VA. Neither of them work for different reasons. They are both too young for Medicare. Neither of them are complaining about the services health services they receive for free. My father was a retired Marine. He died last September after almost a month in the hospital. I saw the bills. $800,000 plus from the hospital and another $200,000 plus from the doctors. It didn’t cost mom a penny. She isn’t complaining about the quality or cost of the healthcare provided for her husband.

Despite all that VA services was the one thing you mentioned that I agreed with you that additional spending would help. As I said the amount you casually threw out there would be a 30% increase to the VA’s budget. That could be a lot of help there. Assuming of course most of it wasn’t wasted by the government bureaucracy, or lost to fraudulent claims from private healthcare providers.

I'm aware that millions of Americans do not have adequate health coverage. That even  if you have private  health insurance that it will run out if you have an illness over years. Not in Oz, or Canada or the UK. In Oz, we have Medicare ,universal health care. It is funded in part by a 2.5%  income tax levy . Plus the cost of most prescription medicines is capped at $33 a script. As a pensioner, I pay $6.50 .

I agree. Millions of Americans don’t have adequate health coverage. That is a problem that we can’t fix by spending more money. There simply isn’t enough of it. The problem isn’t that we don’t spend enough on healthcare. The problem is healthcare costs too much.

You say your single payer system is funded by a 2.5% tax. That’s great! I’m happy for you. A 2.5% tax increase on every American would not pay for 10% of our current healthcare costs. It would take a 30% plus income tax to pay our current healthcare bills. That doesn’t even count the millions of Americans who don’t have adequate healthcare now. Throw them into the mix and you are probably looking at 50% plus tax on everybody. Rich. Poor. Everyone in between. That’s in addition to what we already pay. Rich people couldn’t pay for it alone either. You could tax everyone in the US that makes more than $150,000 dollars a year at 90% and you still wouldn’t raise enough extra money to pay our healthcare bills at their current costs.

I'm aware that millions of Americans end up with student loans  of $100k plus, which cripple them financially for years .Not is OZ, Canada, or the UK.

Millions of Americans do end up with student loans of $100K plus. Most don’t though. The average student loan debt in the US is about $30K. That’s neither here nor there though. Once again the problem isn’t that we don’t spend enough on education. We already spend more per student on education than you do in Oz, Canada, or the UK. The problem is education is too expensive here.

Couple that with predatory lending and you have a big problem. I must admit though that I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who racks up $100 K in debt on a degree in underwater basket weaving. 

That US teachers are grossly underpaid. Eg Saw an article yesterday  where  I think it was in Illinois, teacher's  salaries were to be INCREASED to $40k a year. The average in Oz is over $100k .

The Internet says you are wrong about US teachers being grossly underpaid. The Internet says on average US teachers are among the highest paid in the world. But just in case you don’t feel like Googling this little tidbit I’ll go ahead and post a couple of pictures for you.

That your Social Security system is contributory,  and it is claimed there will not be enough money to pay say the millennials when they reach pension age .  Our Welfare and Pension systems are  universal  and non contributory.

Pay millennials? I’m a late boomer, and I’ll be lucky to receive most of my calculated benefit. But our social security system could be fixed. It wouldn’t even be particularly expensive. Our politicians just don’t have the balls to fix it.

Tell me this though. If your Welfare and Pension funds are universal and non-contributory how are they funded? Does the Australian government have a large flock of geese that lay golden eggs in the basement somewhere? I think not. I think you probably fund your welfare and pension funds through taxes. If so, then I hardly consider that non-contributory.

I won't even start on your prisons.

Our prisons are fucked. For the umpteenth time though that isn’t because we don’t spend enough on them.  

I do not resile from my original comments. America is one of the  richest countries on earth. Its systems of health, education and welfare are fucked. Of course, not all problems can be fixed by throwing money at them .  However  spending badly needed funds in those areas would be great start.


Perhaps before making more fatuous claims about your various systems, have a bit of a look at how other developed nations handle those areas. I assure you,  the US does not do well in comparison. Given its great wealth, I think the US should be a world leader in all of the areas I mentioned . It ain't anywhere near being a leader .

That's all I have to say on this matter. Have the last word by all means.

It’s easy enough to say do what we do. The problem is we can’t make it work here without reducing the costs of some of these things first. You can have universal healthcare because healthcare costs less in your country. We can’t have universal healthcare here until we can figure out how to bring down the cost first.

PS in dollar terms, the US spends more on war than any other country on earth.

The last time I checked the US spends more on war as you put it than the next 7 countries combined. But even if we cut defense spending to zero, and put all that money into healthcare it wouldn’t even be close to paying the bill. In fact, if we cut defense spending to zero our government would still be operating at a $300 billion dollar a year deficit without spending any more on healthcare.

If you think I’m wrong then please tell me where. If you think we can implement universal healthcare here then tell us how. I'll be waiting, but I'm thinking it is going to be a long wait because it's hard to fix something when don't know why it is broken.