Europa moon Lander mission - science

[jefferiestubes8]

A future Europa lander mission would present great science opportunities for the astrobiological exploration of Europa.
A mission to discover whether Europa moon is habitable.
There is a sci-fi film that was released this Summer called Europa Report TrekBBS thread here that is a hard science manned mission to Europa. While a manned mission is not possible in the next 10-15 years we could send a unmanned lander and in the future humanoid robots to explore the surface.

2 years ago NASA was in the concept phase of planning the The Jupiter Europa Orbiter mission would launch 2 landers in 2020.
and a pair of landers to Europa by 2026.

let's discuss the science of it.

Here, we summarize the science of a Europa lander concept, as developed by our NASA-commissioned Science Definition Team.

the full text article Science Potential from a Europa Landerincluding

a suggested strategy of drilling into the surface up to a depth of 10 cm and obtaining samples from at least two different depths

so unlike the mission in the plot of the sci-fi film Europa Report the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO) would not seek to tunnel into this ocean under the ice.

let's keep this on topic with the science.
If you want to discuss the funding and politics of funding please go here
funding for NASA/ESA mission to Europa [financial/political ONLY]

Sending humans that far is decades away. In the mean time humanoid robots are far more likely to land on a distant moon or planet first. See the plans on this thread for uses:
Japan taking humanoid robots to moon by 2015


a related Europa mission exploration thread from a few years ago:
All these worlds are yours... including Europa (and perhaps Enceladus)

 

[publiusr]

This might be as good as it gets, and the F-1 LFBs are going to be needed just for this one: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/sls-completes-pdr-rocket-science-missions/ http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/07/nasa_defends_space_launch_syst.html

Russia responds
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/stk.html

 

[E-DUB]

Insert obligatory 2010 quote here.

 

[gturner]

The SLS PDR was absolutely hilarious, whether intentional or not I can't say. Looking for major milestones, they were adding items like "Held a meeting with JPL to discuss the possibility of coordinating on future potential space science missions." Another was "Looked at manufacturer's data to find cryogenic ignitors that meet new government regulations." I would've phrased that last one as "Surfed the web all day, hitting commercial ignitor sites, while wondering how to milk this job for four more years." There was another bullet point about the breakthrough of one NASA center having a meeting with another one, one maybe having a launcher and one maybe developing a payload that might need launching.

The Wall Street Journal just ran an article slamming the SLS, with a projection of launch costs at $14 billion a flight and a flight rate of once every four years. At that price, seats will cost $2.3 billion each, and that's once the program is in full swing and the Orion is flying with a crew of six. If that flight rate was used during the Apollo program, from the first Saturn V test flight on, Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt would still be in line, waiting to fly to the Taurus-Littrow Valley sometime in 2015 - instead of 1972.

In more optimistic space news, the grasshopper had another great flight.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t15vP1PyoA[/yt]

 

[publiusr]

That was from a Coast to Coast AM guest, who frankly got his figures wrong.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57512113/new-nasa-rocket-may-cost-$500-million-per-launch/

Zimmerman out and out lied on that show. The worst case cost was 1.4 billion,(not 14 b) similar to a Golden Spike moon mission with existing rockets--which can't do high volume hydrogen supply missions the way SLS can. Its costs are similar to Delta IV with more payload than Falcon heavy--which does not have the volumetric efficency to hold liquid hydrogen--in that its payload shroud is no better than those on EELVs.

Moreover, the Falcon heavy will not take 40-53 tons to LEO if it is made recoverable.

To land cores Grasshopper style--that will significantly eat into the payload. And you might not be able to recover that center core at all.

And right now, Musk seems to be more taken with the hyperloop than MCT.

O/T
Hyperloop BTW is an amusement park ride masquerading as public transportation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/elon-musk-reveals-design-hyperloop/story?id=19940273


Now there is a problem with this--earthquake country. With light rail, you may be able to stop if an earthquake's P wave is detected. The rail cars are slow enough to (perhaps) stop before the more damaging S wave arrives--but that is as far as seismic prediction may ever go.


Therefore the faster the train, the less time you have to adjust.

 

[gturner]

I don't think $1.4 billion is the worst-case cost, I think that's the best case. Given that the two 5 segment SRB's are going to run about $160 million, the four RS-25 D or E's are going to cost $200 million (which is highly optimistic), the J-2X's or RL-10's will cost about $70 million, the tanks will cost about $85 million, and the Orion costs about $450 million, you're looking at close to a billion a launch even if the ground requirements were just three guys in a Walmart parking lot and liquid hydrogen was free. At two flights per year the annual cost would be over $4 billion, but the most optimistic budgeting is for about one flight every two years.

Some at NASA actually like my suggestion of putting NASA ground personnel and their families into cryogenic suspension so they don't suffer skill degradation in between launches. ^_^

Elon will probably give up on hyperloop pretty quickly. I roughly calculated the allowable tube deviations and they're quite small (an inch or two causes issues at transonic speeds). I've ridden on an Amtrack route where my head kept rhythmically slamming into the wall, hard, due to track discontinuities. The side G-loads from a given deviation goes up with the square of the vehicle's velocity, so what was bad at 70 mph would be a hundred times worse at 700 mph.

 

[Sephiroth]

sorry, but someone had to

that out of my system, if Europa has water, we might just see another space race

 

[publiusr]

That's a good one.

We don't need to put NASA workers on ice--we need to put them to work, not out of a job.

Thankfully, some of these guys, who had their heads down on drafting tables and CAD/CAM workstations have finaly started noticing the bashing they've been taking
from the blogosphere and have started fighting back

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/07/nasa_defends_space_launch_syst.html

Falcon heavy shortfalls
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=33312

Its giving us the return of the F-1
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=36984

I really like these 3 articles on NewSpace trolls and their tactics
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32540
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32552
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32560

The arguement trolls make is this:

"We need to kill SLS."

Why?

"Because NASA never finishes anything"

Compare this
http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Is-Not-An-Option/dp/0989135500 ?
With an actual AIAA publication--note the author
http://www.amazon.com/Vehicle-Design-Second-Edition-Education/dp/1563475391

I know who I'd rather trust.

 

[sojourner]

I really like these 3 articles on NewSpace trolls and their tactics
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32540
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32552
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32560

Those were awesome, once again, the author was torn to shreds by the commentors. The author really is headed for "conspiracy wacko" territory there.

 

[gturner]

Why on Earth would we want the F-1 to return? It was designed in the 1950's and does not offer particularly good performance. It runs somewhat reliably, but its sea level ISP is only 263, barely better than a solid. Even the Merlin 1D, designed to be a cheap throwaway gas-generator engine, has a sea-level ISP of 282, while the RD-170 with a staged combustion cycle has a sea-level ISP of 309 and slightly more thrust than an F-1. Due to its much greater efficiency, four RD-170's can put up much more payload than 5 F-1's.

But if they want to pursue the kerosene route, why not just go ahead and design a first stage with something like 5 F-1's or 4 RD-170's, then have that lift a hypergolic second stage powered by J-2X's or RS-25E's?

 

[publiusr]

F-1 was--and will be a good engine. besides, and all kerosene option is only possible if F-1 is supported--and the SLS program is funding that--no thanks to the SLS bashers. Any new core would need the same type of tooling, also paid for by SLS. The hydrogen core of SLS has better specific impulse, and wet stage tankage is better for something not containing hydrocarbons.

As per the wiki:
"In 2013, it was reported that the F-1B engine in development has the design goal of being at least as powerful as the un-flight tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective; incorporating a greatly simplified combustion chamber, and a reduced number of engine parts, including the removal of the previously mentioned F-1 exhaust recycling system, that is, the removal of the turbopump exhaust mid-nozzle, "curtain" cooling manifold. The resulting F-1B configuration is intended to result in each engine producing 8.0 MN (1,800,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level, an increase over the approximate 6.9 MN (1,550,000 lbf) of thrust that the mature Apollo 15 F-1 engines produced.[17]"

Those were awesome, once again, the author was torn to shreds by the commentors. The author really is headed for "conspiracy wacko" territory there.

Torn to shreds nothing, the comment-makers were the very same trolls who would have trashed the Saturn program--were the blogosphere extant back then

The fool dominating this forum is the real problem:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32607.15
This "bash gov't spaceflight" is NASA's biggest problem right now.

By the way Sojourner why don't you ask him what went wrong with USA-193?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_193

There is this guy who is supposed to be an "expert" because he works in payload processing--not LV design, or spacecraft design--but in payload processing. Ask him if the sat was lost due to close-out errors and see what kind of response you get.

Oh, that's right, maybe you had better not. He'll just use the word "asinine" on you a dozen times, and ask Chris to have you removed from the board if you, like, prove him a lier as I have.

 

[sojourner]

I notice you jump topics a lot when backed into a corner.

And wtf? attacking a poster on another website? Dude, bitter much? So, he has a job in payload processing in the industry. At Kennedy spaceport. What do you do? Design LVs? Spacecraft design? Do you by chance interact with any of these types on a daily basis like a payload processor might? No?

Yeah, think I know who would be the more reliable source here.

 

[publiusr]

Not you, you didn't even know what hypergolics were.

 

[sojourner]

Ooooh, ouch. I'm hurt.

It's a good thing that Jim does though. Since it relates to his work.

 

[publiusr]

No, I'm serious, ask him about USA 193. He never answered my questions.

 

[sojourner]

Considering it was an NRO spy satellite, maybe he can't answer your questions for security reasons?

 

[wright is wrong]

The fool dominating this forum is the real problem:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32607.15
This "bash gov't spaceflight" is NASA's biggest problem right now.

The real problem is the above poster, whose many posts are asinine and indicative of fools work.

 

[publiusr]

Ah, Jim? Long time no see buddy! Why aren't you calling yourself Byeman again?

Maybe due to this?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7336552&postcount=243
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...s-Do-they-actually-burn&p=1967871#post1967871
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?87318-Over-Moderation/page4&p=1478486#post1478486
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...nned-posters-log/page31&p=1973505#post1973505

But no, you can't be Jim. You sound like a smart man, who would never compare, say Space news to a tabloid, right?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3797.msg113542#msg113542
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3797.msg114238#msg114238

Why don't you tell us what your last name is. I know mine. Didn't you claim to have information about ATK being dirty that you refuse to back up? I'm still waiting.

 

[Captain Kathryn]

Dang, I thought you guys were getting rough on my Mars One thread, but it continues here too.

 

[publiusr]

I apologize for that. It is old history and goes way back. Ironically the hottest threads in Phil Plait's old bautforum-site are the Real Space forums--even more so than the Moon-Hoax-Believers.

The ugliest fight was between Korolov and Glushko, two actual Soviet Chief designers who had a beef over propellants. Then too, there was this previous history with Gulags, who ratted on whom, etc.

But it is good that people are passionate over spaceflight--it shows that people care. My beef with the poster above is that he--and others--want to put MSFC out of work. We are finally getting new life to a lot of Saturn test facilities and getting old infrastructure and capabilities back.

You would think people would be happy.

But we have enough negative male energy.

I am more interested in what you have to say. BTW One of my heros is Carolyn Porco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Porco
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2008/04...alks-about-saturn-star-trek-xi-and-jj-abrams/

She wrote a wonderful article in supporting the now defunct Ares V:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-10/sl_porco
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

The folks who are trying to kill SLS now are the same people that got that even more capable LV killed. And what is more--they were very, very, ugly to her.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27703.msg847912#msg847912

So I haven't had a lot of use for them for that reason alone.

She is, however, quite capable of fighting back:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27703.msg848427#msg848427

So her calls for larger LV growth to enable Europa missions are to be listened to--not belittled and ignored by the usual suspects.

More on Europa
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/..._of_eruption_on_Jupiters_moon_Europa_999.html