someone pointed me to http://pluto.jhuapl.edu, which
is the web site for the new horizons missions; the
mission appears to be alive and well. hopefully the
leadership of icepic/proteus/whatever is a bit better
informed about the status of europa exploration than
pluto. :)
Chalk that error to me, not to the website. I'm not as deeply into the loop on the latest and greatest space science endeavors as Bruce Moomaw, Larry Klaes, or the website moderators.
However, one of the central functions of this Europa site is to collect information about upcoming space developments, and disperse it among the members. That's just what you have done, by informing us of the New Horizons missions.
> The purpose of the project IS clearly delineated.
> We've listed them several
> times in past posts. Again:
> 1) Create a 3' long, 8" diameter metal tube as a
> radio controlled
> submersible that can slowly travel through 500' of
> ice, and drop a series of
> weak radio transponders behind it as it goes.
> 2) The process of creating this thing would
> necessarily involve a lot of
> people, from all walks of life. We'd like to
> involve a high school or two,
> if we can find one that is interested. We'd like to
> garner public support.
> 3) There is no such thing, currently, as a
> radio-controlled ice submersible.
> The closest analog is NASA's drill, equipped with a
> camera, currently being
> tested in Antarctica. This is somewhat different,
> as it is radio controlled,
> and ideally, has a self-contained heating unit.>
ok, thanks, i missed the discussion where the group
hashed those goals out. (is it archived somewhere?)
but i can't resist asking some questions about these:
If you go to the IcePIC website (www.klx.com/europa) and then go to the membership directory, there is an 'archives' tab at the bottom of the page. Click on it. It will show you emails from the past 1 1/2 years or so. I don't know if older archives are available, or if they are deleted after a certain time period.
Larry or Bruce might have the older archives on file somewhere. We need to get the archives (all of the archives) accessible somewhere. There is about 4 years worth of emails here, on any number of space related (and some not so space related) issues. At the very least, there must be grist for 1000 good science fiction novels floating around in those old emails, along with some pretty interesting concepts and proposals.
1) how and why were the specific dimensions and length
(3 feet, 6 inches, 500 feet deep) chosen? do they
have some special scientific or engineering
significance?
The dimensions were somewhat arbitrary. I chose them, while keeping in mind the past emails and current developments, which require a model to be at least 3' long or so, simply to have enough internal room for a heating element, a guidance system, and a small payload.
What gives ME the right to arbitrarily choose something? Nothing but priority. This is the second time that we've tried to come up with a working model -- the first was in March 2001. This time, a new member asked: 'I came onto the Europa website hoping to participate, and all I get are emails discussing esoteric pseudo-science. Where's the beef?'. My reply was, 'put your money where your mouth is -- here's a brief proposal for a working model, along parameters already determined in earlier posts... let's see if WE can do something like this.' If you're interested, the threads start with Chris' email, about 1 or 2 emails prior to 'Wild Proposal #1'.
Why 500' through ice? It's attainable, but not such a short distance as to be negligible. It demonstrates a concept, that an ice submersible CAN be constructed, rather than just discussed.
Yes, there are more technical or scientifically minded people than I am. But, because we've been hammering on this thing for some 2 weeks now, a lot of qualified engineers and scientists have jumped into the game. It's all a question of taking that first step, to paraphrase Dostoevsky.
2) what are the intermediate steps leading up to this
goal? i've seen people discuss drilling to all sorts
of depths, from a few feet to 500 feet, so i assume
these are some agreed-upon waypoints to the final
goal.
We're still in the planning stages. You've entered the game at a good time, since we don't have anything solid just yet. Our first deadline is tonight: 'come up with a name for a working model of a terrestial ice submersible'.
Our second deadline is November 15: 'come up with a list of 7-10 people who can participate time/energy/money to this project, and post it on the internet'.
So far, we are keeping pace with our deadlines.
Our next deadline is 'come up with a rough sketch, that we can break down and assign groups to work on each part'. That deadline is, for now, December 1. Joe Latrell's 'napkin drawing' is the first of many such sketches which we must do. The process of sketching, erasing, and resketching will take up several weeks of haggling.
Once we figure out our preliminary sketches, we can make a nice sketch, and really come up with a working model, on paper. We can also use that sketch for presentation purposes (Gary has volunteered to help write grant proposals) and for publicity, and posting here on the website.
Again, we are still in the planning stages. This is the hard part: keeping the impetus alive here, so we can get those sketches done, and so we can start focusing people on individual tasks, and make progress.
> Besides: since these series of threads started,
> this site has seen more
> activity than it has for 6 months. People WANT to
> participate in a project,
> they want hands-on action, not more theories that
> someone else has to test 10
> years from now.
there's no harm in tinkering, of course, but i've seen
too many proejcts started up on the internet and fall
apart because of a lack of planning and leadership,
regardless of the available resources and good
intentions. why not take the time to do a little
planning in advance first to increase the odds of
success?
We're doing the best we can. We don't have a central office to sit around and drink coffee and brainstorm in. We're still in the planning stage. We're doing the best we can on the leadership aspect -- all of us have seen projects rise and fail for lack of planning and leadership. This project is partly about taking a fairly small, doable task, and then doing it. If this website can succeed in building a little ice submersible, who is to say what we can't do in 2004, simply by working with the impetus we created in 2002? We have to start somewhere. This is that somewhere.
-a.j.
ps: what's the url of the site you're referring to
above that has seen an increase in activity?
Look at the archives. The terrestial test model subject threads started about 2 weeks ago. The archives now list about a page of titles on the subject.
Prior entries were often Larry dropping in a list of website references to ongoing space science research and development, or Robt. Bradbury and I bickering about would-be development in space, or SETI research.
i
checked the url appended to the end of each message
and there's no sign of change there, so i assume
there's another web site where all the planning
documents and the like for this are?
Gail Leatherwood is our project organizer. He is currently working on creating two lists. One list is IcePIC members interested in working on this model. The other will be a list of model proposals, and the pros and cons of each.
One final thing: if all of this looks disorganized to you, it is for two reasons. One, you might not have the full background on the site that some other members do, so it sounds as if we're just shooting ideas around willy nilly. We're not. There IS a method to our madness... you have to reference the archives to get a fuller picture.
The second reason for apparent disorganization is the nature of email. People address those subjects which interest them. Because we are not in an office environment, with 'tail assembly' or somesuch written on a chalkboard up front, it is difficult to keep the subjects organized and focused.
Partly, that's my task: to provide some level of focus, and keep redirecting everyone back to a set of central, limited tasks, without going off on a technical / philosophical tangent.
Please bear with us. Better yet, join our motley band, and volunteer some of your talents and enthusiasm. Help Gail in the organization. Help come up with a sketch. Come up with a list of people who might be interested in working on this project. Come up with a proposal for a workable heating element.
Join us, Luke. Come over to the dark side.
-- John Harlow Byrne
