I now see a major problem with naming the terrestial model 'Icepick'. Larry is talking about proposals for an actual Europa probe, employing a kinetic penetrator, for sometime in 2015 or beyond.
The terrestial model involves proposals for a model constructed from off-the-shelf parts, and is only capable of tunneling in terrestial glaciers.
It is of critical importance that the two projects be distinguished. The suggested name 'Proteus' for the terrestial model was nixed, for good reason. However, unless and until we get a separate website going, we're going to keep running into this problem of distinguishing the theoretical Europa bound 'Icepick' from the more practical, terrestial bound 'Icepick'.
Solutions?
-- John Harlow Byrne
In a message dated 10/31/2002 7:11:33 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remember the plans for the CRAF probe over a decade ago
that was going to send a spike-shaped probe into a comet
to penetrate its surface and study the interior of an ancient
iceball?
Would it be possible to design something similar for Icepick?
If we find a relatively thin area of Europa's crust, perhaps
one of the cracks or those upwellings just in the news, we
could literally use a hardened protective cone to smash
through the ice and deposit the Icepick Hydroobot into the
liquid ocean. Or at the least slam it deep into the ice so
we would not have to melt/drill/dig so far?
My hope for this is to reduce the amount of power and
such to get through the ice crust so we can focus more
resources on the Hydrobot. Could the Hydrobot be
designed to survive such an impact?
