This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astrobiology

Planetary Society's Drive-By Analysis of Europa Lander

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 8, 2016
Filed under
Planetary Society's Drive-By Analysis of Europa Lander

Attempt no landing there? Yeah right we’re going to Europa, Ars Technica
“NASA is very publicly planning a mission to Europa in the 2020s, one that will soar over the intriguing moon dozens of times. Yet the reality is more thrilling. Quietly, the same engineers who masterminded the daring Curiosity landing on Mars in 2012 have been plotting how best to drop a lander onto the nightmare glacier. In early November, they presented their preliminary findings for a 230-kg lander to the one person in the world who can, and who dearly wants to, make that happen. “I told them to do whatever it takes,” said Representative John Culberson after meeting with the NASA scientists. “All of humanity is going to want to know what’s under the ice.”
A Lander for NASA’s Europa Mission, Planetary Society
“There’s been almost no official information on the lander. What we know comes from a long article from Ars Technica’s Eric Berger on the then possible addition of a lander and a dedicated plume flyby sub-satellite.”
Keith’s note: This is one of the more odd posts by the Planetary Society. My talented colleague Eric Berger committed some actual journalism and published a story on this. Then the Planetary Society (or one of their preferred bloggers, Van Kane) did a story – on Eric’s story – with some passive insinuations about its veracity such as “Berger is a long time space reporter and has developed a good relationship with House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson (R-TX).” And then it goes on to use variations on “Berger says” a dozen times – as if Eric is the source of everything about this concept. No, he’s a reporter – a rather industrious one at that. Kane then goes on to cast doubt on the notion that anything could – or should be landed on Europa. Oddly, the author never (apparently) spoke to Rep. Culberson. Or to Eric Berger. Or to NASA. The Planetary Society was all over the notion of sending a mission to Europa when it was fanning the flames over the recently approved budget. Now, well, not so much, it would seem. Its becoming difficult to figure out what Planetary Society is against – or what it was for – before it was against. There’s no disclaimer on the article other than to note where it first appeared. How odd. A member of Congress totally ‘gets’ astrobiology and exploration – and yet this second guessing post is the best that Planetary Society can put forth?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

44 responses to “Planetary Society's Drive-By Analysis of Europa Lander”

  1. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    I am getting the distinct impression that The Planetary Society has their head collectively stuck right up their own Uranus.

  2. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    If Representative Culberson is motivated solely by scientific curiosity regarding what lies under the ice on Europa, why would he have inserted language into the NASA appropriations bill requiring the Europa mission to be launched on the SLS?

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Uh, because he traded his vote for something he needed support–perhaps to someone from Alabama?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      The lander and an SLS launch may go together. If launched on an Atlas, the current mission may not have enough mass for a lander. The report said a 230 kg lander, but it also has to stop. The approach velocity is 5 or.6 km/s and Europa has essentially no atmosphere to slow the lander down. If 230 kg is the dry mass, then the total is quite a bit more. If it’s the wet mass, then that would be a very small, limited lander. Either way, adding the lander may rule out an Atlas launch.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Or a Delta IV heavy?

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Or a Falcon Heavy with double the capacity.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s the capacity to LEO. Without a good (as in H2/O2) upper stage, for planetary missions, the Falcon Heavy is better but not by anything like a factor of two.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            OK,
            to be more precise, 1 2/3 times the payload to deep space.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think it’s even 1 2/3. It might be for a minimum escape trajectory, but once you start asking for a significant C3 (energy above escape energy) the lack of a third stage and one with high specific impulse really starts to hurt. For a direct trajectory to Jupiter, we might be talking 1 1/3 or less.

            SpaceX used to have a PDF user’s (or, more correctly, buyer’s) guide for the Falcon 9.0 on their web page. It had a chart of payload to escape trajectories, out to the C3 required to go to Mars. I’ve never found similar information for the 9.1 or Falcon Heavy. But that chart did show payload dropping off with C3 much faster than other, similar charts I’ve seen for vehicles with H2/O2 final stages.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Delta IV heavy is rated as 8000 kg for trans martian injection.
            Falcon Heavy is rated as 13,500kg to Trans martian injection.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The F9 user guide is available here:
            https://www.spaceflightnow…. The C3 chart is on page 22. This presentation
            http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opa… gives a C3 of 15(km/sec)^2 for the Atlas launch vs 82 for the SLS. The mass reserve is given as 4494kg (Atlas) vs 6087(SLS). Given the mass reserves for either vehicle and the availability of low C3 trajectories with gravity assist, it is not obvious to me why the additional mass for the lander would drive the choice of LV.

            It seems to me that the choice of electrical power sources for the spacecraft may be more important. Nuclear appears more practical for a large Jupiter mission given the very large area and high radiation exposure of solar panels, but little is being done to prepare either conventional RTGs or sterling cycle concepts.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            What may not be obvious is the required mass margin. A presentation on the enhanced mission study (from another OPAG meeting, I think, but I don’t have the link, and dated 12/13/12) says “project policies/JPL design principles” require a 40% mass margin.

            In the presentation your link points to, it says the Atlas launch gives a 41% margin, and SLS gives 45% for a direct transfer. If you accept the 40% margin, then an Atlas launch only has room for about 55 kg extra dry mass.

            If you think requiring a 40% mass margin is excessive, I might agree. But that’s what’s behind the statement that an Atlas launch wouldn’t allow a lander. It doesn’t allow it according to the rules under which the mission is being designed.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          They only studied launching on an Atlas V 551 or SLS Block 1. But I’m not sure how much of a.difference a Delta heavy would make.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      The politics of getting the mission. Plus, if SLS actually is available for launching it, it would be great news. The launch would cost more, but they could send a larger spacecraft out and get it to Jupiter in 2-3 years.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        It is inconcievable that an extra 230Kg would make it too heavy tor the FH, or even the Atlas. The transit time with the Atlas is apparently 6 years, vs 3 with the SLS. I suspect the science staff would not be enthusiastic about spending $1B to save three years in transit time if they actually had control of the money.

        However the cost of the SLS will apparently be in the Exploration budget rather than the SMD budget, and NASA will not have the option of using the money for more instruments or a more capable lander.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          From the information provided to people proposing instruments (which is a bit dated but quite detailed) that 230 kg isn’t there for an Atlas launch, nor is it there for a direct trajectory and an SLS launch. Although that isn’t quite true: at this stage of mission development, a sizable mass margin is required. That’s to make sure mass growth due to unexpected problems don’t make it too heavy to launch. They are carrying well over 230 kg of margin.

  3. Ioannis Kokkinidis says:
    0
    0

    Van Kane does not work for the Planetary Society. He has his own blog (futureplanets.blogspot.com) from which the Planetary society hosts content

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Gee, Planetary Society does not bother to make that distinction. I see no disclaimer that the commentary does not reflect the Planetary Society. Absent that, as is the case with other things they post (similarly not containing a disclaimer) you can safely assume that they agree with what is said – and that it does not conflict with their plans. Otherwise, they’d never post it. They do not run a news site. They run an advocacy website that promotes certain things – and not others.

      • anirprof says:
        0
        0

        The post in question is categorized under “Guest Blogs”, Van Kane is not included in PS’s list of bloggers, and this disclaimer appears at the top of the post: “This article originally appeared on Van Kane’s blog and is reposted here with permission.”

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          A disingenuous distinction.

          It’s not called OpEd, leaving readers to believe that the PS approves of the message.

  4. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    It’s pretty simple for me. When is the next time we’re going to get a Europa mission after this? The 2030s? Later? Don’t look a gift lander in the probe.

  5. moon2mars says:
    0
    0

    The Planetary Society jumped the shark sometime ago…

  6. Van Kane says:
    0
    0

    I did my best in the piece to make it clear how much respect I have for Eric Berger’s article and reporting and then provide some larger context.

  7. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    At this rate, there’s a big risk here of the Europa mission becoming the JWST of the Planetary Science Division.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      I think the Europa funding has been all on top of existing Planetary Science funding, so as long as Culberson comes through with it they’ll be fine.

      • AstroInMI says:
        0
        0

        I’m thinking more along the lines of what happened with the cost growth of JWST that goes with requirements creep. I’m sure when JWST was first proposed, too, it all fit nicely in a sand chart. But putting something on Europa (and orbiting it) is also incredibly complex as was JWST. Cost growth with that complexity should be a major concern.

  8. Byron says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I appreciate your kind words for US Rep. John Culberson. My wife Karen and I live in his district, and are pleased to call him a friend. His knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, space exploration is boundless. Thanks to him, we are On To Europa!

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Its a pity that everything else he does is not positive.

      • Byron says:
        0
        0

        That’s kind of a nasty thing for you to say. Care to elaborate?

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          (I lessened the disgust in my original post)
          Just a tiny sampling:

          Start with the fact of his grossly irresponsible vote to shut down the functioning of the government, without regard to the harm that causes.
          Voted against raising the debt limit to pay for costs that Congress already approved, violated his sworn oath and jeopardizing the credit rating of the United States.
          Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
          Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
          Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes.
          Supports requiring schools to allow prayer.
          Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
          voting for requiring photo id to vote which has been shown to disenfranchise seniors and minorities.
          Voted against human embryo stem cell research
          Voted YES on terminating the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HARP), which helps distressed mortgages be adjusted to keep people in their homes.
          Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing.
          Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry.
          Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.
          Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.
          Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
          Voted NO on raising car mileage standards;
          Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
          Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
          Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules.
          Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
          Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record.
          No EPA expansion of regulated waters.
          Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees.
          Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.
          Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.
          Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.
          Loosen restrictions on interstate gun purchases.
          Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC
          Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug.
          Voted NO on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
          Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health.
          Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
          Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
          Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states..
          Rated 22% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
          Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts.
          Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.
          Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
          Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation.
          Member of the Tea Party movement.
          Rated 20% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.
          Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation.
          Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
          Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms’ warrantless surveillance.
          End net neutrality; allow tiered Internet service.
          Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. 2002

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          Is it not ironic that the system that was to close the gap has no HSF mission for lack of funds? That a 100mT LV with solids and low flight rate would fly crew? Economic access to space ignored for decades? That SLS’s first mission will have cost 10s of billions in development?

          The record of the last three decades shows that Congress has ignored the Space Grand Challenges including number 1: Economic Access to Space. 1990s: “175M could not be found out of NASA’s 14B budget to develop a cost effective launch system” nor today.

          “Space technology is thus concentrated more and more in the hands of an industrial oligopoly contracting with a government oligopsony (NASA/AF), neither of which has much incentive to make their existing technology obsolete.”

          “Space Launch System, which is so expensive to build and fly that NASA’s human exploration program can’t afford to build payloads for crewed missions. The big rocket needs meaningful launches, and getting the Clipper to Jupiter fast would fit snugly into its launch manifest.”

  9. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I’m curious how planetary protection will affect this. The requirement is to avoid contaminating the ocean. In the past, mission concepts argued that transport through the ice she’ll was very slow, so some probability of contaminating the surface should be acceptable. (Radiation would kill the bugs before they got near liquid water.)

    But, at an Europa plume workshop at Ames, about a year ago, the head of NASA’s planetary protection office said something about this logic: If any sort of.plume exists, then transport from the surface to the ocean must be considered instant. I’m not sure I remember her exact wording, but the point was that contaminating the surface would be treated as contaminating the ocean.

    That puts some extremely challenging requirements on a lander. More strict, as I understand it, than those imposed on Mars landers.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      Given Jupiter’s radiation, they probably don’t need to put the entire lander through Category IVc protection level standards – just some of the instruments. Jupiter will kill any bugs in the lander’s guts in short order.

      Planetary Protection has been on a mission creep roll lately. If they get their way, they’ll make it virtually impossible to do a valuable Mars sample return, and nearly or totally cost-prohibitive to actually do lander surveys for life.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Well, you only get one chance to get it wrong. And the consequences are beyond comprehension.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          It’s highly unlikely that all the spacecraft that have landed on or impacted Mars were entirely sterile. However the surface of Mars is so inhospitable, given the lack of water, high solar ultraviolet, and reactive chemicals that spread of organisms from a spacecraft is unlikely.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            We can hope.
            But you did say the magic words: ” lack of water”.

            A lot of places we are looking (including Mars) have or may have water.
            So, as the briefing sergeant in Hill Street Blues used to say, “Lets be careful out there!”

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            There seem to be only brief periods when saturated brine flows or ice melts and briefly remains liquid, but normally water cannot exist in a liquid state at 10mB pressure. And of course there are also reactive oxygen species and solar UV. The surface or Mars makes a pretty good sterilizer.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Surface, possibly in some places (or not), but other places on Mars, maybe not. We don’t know enough about either Mars or life to know for sure. But more importantly, it is the ocean worlds, like some gas giant moons, that we must avoid thinking we know more than we do.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        That’s why I’m interested in seeing how this plays out. Last time I heard, planetary protection requirements were the same for all parts of the spacecraft, and you could only claim a sterilizing does from Jovian radiation equal to the dose to the most heavily shielded component. That’s probably “just” 100 krad. Different rules for external parts and heavily shielded components are conceivable. I think that would make sense. But that’s not what was being discussed as recently as half a year ago (when last I heard about it.)

  10. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I don’t know what all of you filthy meatbags are complaining about.

    (I’m making a joke – http://bit.ly/1n8OhPA)