Fw: Declaration of Support for Space Exploration
- Original Message - From: The Planetary Society Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:09 PM To: Planetary Society Subject: Declaration of Support for Space Exploration Dear Friend,In times of tragedy what can an individual do? We canand should stand together as a group and express ourdeepest sympathy to the families, friends and lovedones of the seven astronauts lost with theSpace Shuttle Columbia.We can also reaffirm our dedication to the quest thatsent these brave explorers to space. When astronautsfly, they carry with them the dreams and aspirationsof the human race to explore the frontier of space.We believe a positive future in space awaits us forthe benefit of all humankind. We want to ensurethat this great adventure continues.We at The Planetary Society are providing theopportunity to sign a declaration of support forspace exploration, which we will then present to NASA.Sincerely, Louis FriedmanExecutive DirectorThe Planetary SocietyTo sign our Declaration of Support go to:https://planetary.org/petition3/index.htmlYou have been subscribed to The Planetary Society'se-mail update because, at some point in the past,you indicated a desire to receive additionalinformation in this format. If you need to changeyour email address, please send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] with TPS-email change in thesubject header.Feel free to send this newsletter on to yourfriends, colleagues, and family.If you are interested in the future of planetaryexploration, please contact us at[EMAIL PROTECTED] with your thoughts,questions, and concerns.
Re: What's Next -- Off topic
Yes, thank you. > > The american government owns the shuttles under the direction of NASA. > A large chunk of Shuttle opperations is run by United Space Alliance > (USA) that is a joint project of Lockheed and Boeing. > > Does this help? > > Joe Latrell > > On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 21:37, Sandy Shutey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Please tell me that people have some hope in private enterprise taking > > > the reins and running with a manned space effort. > > > > Could you please tell me who actually owns the shuttles? I was under the > > impression that NASA sold them to a private enterprise several years ago. > > Thanks, > > > > > > == > > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Keep this on Europa Icepick
There are plenty of places on the net to discuss all sorts of space topics. I want this list to remain one devoted to exploring Europa, especially with the idea of the Icepick probe. With all the bandwidth out there, I don't think it is too much to ask that one list remain focused on one topic, and an important one in planetary exploration at that. If there were any discussion "doldrums", they have been fixed thanks to JIMO. Also I have continued to post items related to the subject, such as bioastronomy and space technology that would make Icepick possible. I would like to see people continue discussing how to make Icepick a reality. You do not have to be building an actual model or be an expert to participate. But if we had solved all the issues of getting through kilometers of ice to swim in an alien ocean halfway across the Sol system, then Icepick would already be there. So let's keep working on the dream. Thank you. Larry - Original Message - From: G B Leatherwood Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: On/Off Topic Since we seem to have so much trouble reining in those who have something to say about space exploration, how about this? Suppose we either just change the name of the group, or keep the name for its intended purpose and just stop worrying about what is discussed? A. This is a wonderfully diverse group with a sincere desire to foster efforts in getting off the planet, and B. There is actually very little to discuss productively about Europa, at least for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see the group continue because it's such a rich resource, and current events discussion could help keep the interest of the members up in the doldrum periods of Europa interest. Please be assured this is in no way a criticism of our site administrator--his is a thankless job at best, and we should all give him a big "Well Done!" for putting up with us for as long as he has. What thinkest thou? Gail Leatherwood
Debate on space science - robots vs. humans
The following article is from Technology Review: MIT's Magazine of Innovation: Article Title: Space Shuttle Science Hubble aside, what would you name as the really glorious achievements of NASA in the last 20 years? My favorite: the discovery that every moon of every planet is significantly different from every other moon, a result completely unanticipated and still not understood. One might also pick the amazing success of weather satellites. Or the remarkable pictures you get from your satellite TV system. Those in the know might pick our space spy systems. Then there’s GPS—the Global Positioning System, used to guide airplanes, boats, hikers, automobiles as well as soldiers and smart weapons. These projects have one thing in common: they were all unmanned. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller021003.asp?p=0
Unmanned missions still face funding fight
Unmanned missions still face funding fight By Tamara LytleSentinel Bureau ChiefFebruary 12, 2003WASHINGTON -- Robotic space missions have long been overshadowed by NASA's focus on astronauts and may now have to compete for funding against a manned-flight program garnering public sympathy and support.The latest unmanned probe reporting in to NASA, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, beamed back a wealth of data about the origin of the universe, the space agency said Tuesday. [The Universe is 13.7 billion years old, for starters.]Much of the science being conducted on space shuttle Columbia before it disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1 could have been done on an unmanned mission.That revives some of the debate about whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has weighted too much of its money and attention toward astronaut missions instead of the cheaper, less risky robotic probes.But President Bush and leaders in Congress have made it clear that, despite the success of probes such as MAP, manned spaceflight is a major part of the future of space exploration.Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, said the manned missions get children interested in space science and are important to the public."If we say it's too risky, the psychological impact of what makes us different from the rest of the world asAmericans could be huge," Weldon said.The Apollo moon landings helped prove American technological prowess during the Cold War, said Henry Hertzfeld, a senior research scientist at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University."One of the first things you have to deal with is the politics of NASA, which is organized around putting people in space," Hertzfeld said. "There has always been a tendency to favor the very expensive human spaceflight in NASA."Astronauts make missions more expensive because of the life-support systems and the extra safety measures, such as redundant systems in case something goes wrong. Probes can withstand harsh space conditions unfit for humans and can send data back without needing to return to Earth.Hertzfeld said some of the scientists and engineers involved in unmanned probes have been frustrated by the focus on manned spaceflight. If NASA doesn't get the money it needs to fix the problems in the manned-spaceflight program, "some of those [unmanned] programs could be jeopardized," Hertzfeld said.John McElroy, a member of NASA's Advisory Council, said the two types of programs are difficult to compare because they have different goals. Manned spaceflight is driven by the desire for international prominence in technology and the innate yearning for exploration. The unmanned missions are driven by more specific goals of science and finding applications to benefit mankind.Some of the applications that grew out of unmanned missions include weather satellites that warn of approaching hurricanes, global-positioning devices that help lost drivers and communications satellites that bring the world HBO and pagers.McElroy, chairman of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences, said it's too early to know how the Columbia tragedy will affect robotic missions. Because the probes can be launched into space on rockets, they do not depend on the now-grounded shuttle fleet.The unmanned missions can try to answer cosmic questions such as whether life can exist beyond Earth. A Mars probe spotted ice and hydrogen there, which raises the possibility life has existed there.Gwyneth K. Shaw of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report. Tamara Lytle can be reached at 202-824-8255 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asecssunmanned12021203feb12,0,1797185.story?coll=orl%2Dnews%2Dheadlines%2Dspace
NASA - Space Science - Project Prometheus
Click here: NASA - Space Science - Project Prometheus Rick L. Sterling
Conduct your own exploration of Jupiter and its moons
JUPITER AND SATURN AFTER SUNSETThese giant planets are currently well-placed for viewing, and are greatsights even in small telescopes. Here are some articles that will help youget the most out of your planetary observing session.A Jupiter Observing Guide:> http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/objects/planets/article_174_1.aspTransit Times of Jupiter's Great Red Spot:> http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/objects/planets/article_107_1.aspAn Observing Guide to Saturn:> http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/objects/planets/article_304_1.aspJUPITER'S MOON DANCESAs Jupiter's four largest satellites gracefully dance around the giantplanet, they occasionally pass behind or in front of each other. Duringthe night of February 17-18, Europa first occults, then eclipsesGanymende. Why not see what these moons are doing tonight?> http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/objects/planets/article_771_1.aspSKY AT A GLANCETo read more about what's happening in the night sky this week, visit"This Week's Sky at a Glance" at:> http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/ataglance/
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter-NASA Fact Sheet
Click here: http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/JIMO.pdf Rick L. Sterling
Re: On/Off Topic
Here's a proposition to get you all thinking: What are the technical problems inherent in sending a zeppelin probe to Europa? Here's the proposition: The probe that eventually goes to Europa will have a significant fuel limit, and a nearly limitless amount of terrain to explore prior to choosing a site for dropping a submersible, if any. Why not send a small probe which uses a nuclear isotope to kick-start a process, wherein water ice is electrolyzed into constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen provides fuel, and the hydrogen is shunted into a gas bag of sufficient size to make the probe a zeppelin style survey probe. This creates a dual use craft. One, it would be able to land, and refuel. Two, it would potentially be able to shuttle between an actual orbital craft and the surface. Of course, it would also be able to relay transmissions well, and the reflective surface of the gas bag itself would make it easy to bounce signals off of, and be a large surface for receiving them as well (in essence, the entire surface of the bag is the antenna). What are the problems inherent in such a scheme? Well, someone will likely suggest that a zeppelin won't work, for one reason or another. Sure, it's vulnerable to flying micro-asteroids and the like. Explosions? Not in the nearly airless atmosphere of Europa. This ain't the Hindenburg. With a compartmentalized bag, and the capacity to simply pop another bag out, a zeppelin style probe could last for years, certainly long enough to do the work necessary. Of course, the bag could also be deflated during 'down periods', and reinflated at a later date. Oh, and did I mention that despite the lack of sexy glamour that everyone attributes to rockets, a zeppelin concept is CHEAP? Okay, gang, get back to your drawing boards. -- John Harlow Byrne (still crazy after all these years) == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Keep this on Europa Icepick
In a message dated 2/12/2003 5:11:56 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a question of bandwidth. It's a question of mindwidth. There is an astounding lack of scientific and inquiring minds out there, a public which insists that Britney Spears is a cultural icon. Sure, coming up with Icepick style probes is a grand idea. But, we've already proven that the capacity to do so does not exist on this website. Ergo, the alternative is to open the discussion floor a bit, and allow the website to host discussions RELATING to space exploration and Europa in general. It's amazing, how a little discussion in one area can have positive benefits in applying to concepts in other areas. -- JHB There are plenty of places on the net to discuss all sorts of space topics. I want this list to remain one devoted to exploring Europa, especially with the idea of the Icepick probe. With all the bandwidth out there, I don't think it is too much to ask that one list remain focused on one topic, and an important one in planetary exploration at that.
Zepplin Europa?
Title: Zepplin Europa? I thought Europa didn't have enough atmosphere to support a Zepplin? Maybe a "moon hopper" would be a cheap means of locomotion that could manage jumbled terrain? Still, it seems the JIMO orbiter will sense enough of the surface. It seems a higher priority would be a "depth first" instead of a "breadth first" search. Regards, Tom Green -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On/Off Topic Here's a proposition to get you all thinking: What are the technical problems inherent in sending a zeppelin probe to Europa? Here's the proposition: The probe that eventually goes to Europa will have a significant fuel limit, and a nearly limitless amount of terrain to explore prior to choosing a site for dropping a submersible, if any. Why not send a small probe which uses a nuclear isotope to kick-start a process, wherein water ice is electrolyzed into constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen provides fuel, and the hydrogen is shunted into a gas bag of sufficient size to make the probe a zeppelin style survey probe. This creates a dual use craft. One, it would be able to land, and refuel. Two, it would potentially be able to shuttle between an actual orbital craft and the surface. Of course, it would also be able to relay transmissions well, and the reflective surface of the gas bag itself would make it easy to bounce signals off of, and be a large surface for receiving them as well (in essence, the entire surface of the bag is the antenna). What are the problems inherent in such a scheme? Well, someone will likely suggest that a zeppelin won't work, for one reason or another. Sure, it's vulnerable to flying micro-asteroids and the like. Explosions? Not in the nearly airless atmosphere of Europa. This ain't the Hindenburg. With a compartmentalized bag, and the capacity to simply pop another bag out, a zeppelin style probe could last for years, certainly long enough to do the work necessary. Of course, the bag could also be deflated during 'down periods', and reinflated at a later date. Oh, and did I mention that despite the lack of sexy glamour that everyone attributes to rockets, a zeppelin concept is CHEAP? Okay, gang, get back to your drawing boards. -- John Harlow Byrne (still crazy after all these years) == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Zepplin Europa?
In a message dated 2/12/2003 10:37:23 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you're gonna dive into Europa, you need a good site. I doubt this can be located from Earth. Ergo, having a floating observatory is a potential key to allowing later submersibles, as well as providing a site from which to launch such a submersible. No atmosphere? Big deal. Hydrogen is light, so it escapes Europa's light gravity. By adjusting the hydrogen balloons, the 'zeppelin' achieves lift. How does it look? Like a sunflower. The lack of an atmosphere is here made to work FOR the project, rather than against it. Since there is little to no atmosphere, there is no need for an aerodynamic, cigar shape. Instead, the observatory might be shaped like so: O O O # O O O This is a 'top down' view, in ASCI format. The # represents the pod itself. It includes a small nuclear powered plant sufficient to electolyze water ice into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is shunted to the balloons (there are several, perhaps as many as a dozen small balloons; in such a hostile environment, redundancy is a good thing). By adjusting the balloons fill, the probe itself is lifted into the 'air' above the surface. Note that the balloons form a parabola shape -- they do not need to be round at all, but can be wedge shaped; they can be tethered together with electromagnets. Turn on the current, and the wedges magnetize to one another, forming a complete sunflower, with a bowl shape. The entire surface of the balloons can therefore be used as a parabolic focus, for ease in transmitting signals over several AUs of distance back to Earth, or to an orbiting relay point. Of course, the probe itself includes, besides the electolysis engine, a radio transmitter and a camera focused on the surface. There would also need to be a light 'drill' siphon dangling from the bottom of the sunflower, sufficient to siphon up sufficient water ice for use in the balloons, and to also provide liquid oxygen as additional fuel. The drill siphon is also a handy anchor, and ice density and composition test device. Of course, the size of the probe is open to debate. I don't see why it couldn't be quite large, considering the light gravity of Europa, and the limitless supply of water ice. If you lose a balloon petal for some reason, you simply pop up another balloon, turn on the electricity to the magnets, and it is replaced easily enough. What have you accomplished by such a simple, cheap,and elegant solution? You now have an observatory, which can last decades. It can provide in-situ observation, relay pictures of the entire Jovian system back to Earth, and provide fuel and a dock for a submersible. Price? I don't know but a hell of a lot cheaper than agonizing over sending up astronauts to do the same job, with half the efficiency. The technology to do this exists NOW. The capacity to send such a light probe exists NOW, and can be done for far less than the NASA budget proposals. When you stop thinking ROCKETS, the whole solar system opens up... like a sunflower. -- John Harlow Byrne I thought Europa didn't have enough atmosphere to support a Zepplin? Maybe a "moon hopper" would be a cheap means of locomotion that could manage jumbled terrain? Still, it seems the JIMO orbiter will sense enough of the surface. It seems a higher priority would be a "depth first" instead of a "breadth first" search. Regards, Tom Green
Fw: Galileo Mission To Jupiter Topic Of Fiske Planetarium Show In Colorado
- Original Message - From: Ron Baalke - Galileo Project Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Galileo Mission To Jupiter Topic Of Fiske Planetarium Show In Colorado http://www.colorado.edu/newsservices/NewsReleases/2003/2172.htmlUniversity of Colorado at BoulderContact:Fran Bagenal, (303) 492-2598[EMAIL PROTECTED]Greg Swenson, (303) 492-3113February 11, 2003GALILEO MISSION TO JUPITERTOPIC OF FISKE PLANETARIUM SHOWThe many discoveries of the Galileo spacecraft in its journey through spaceand around Jupiter will be explored at CU-Boulder's Fiske Planetarium onFriday, Feb. 21, and Tuesday, Feb. 25, at 7:30 p.m.University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Fran Bagenal will present herlive show "Galileo: Mission to Jupiter," as part of the planetarium'smonthly astronomy talks. The live talks are given by CU-Boulder professorsand guest lecturers.During her show Bagenal will present the explorations of Jupiter from thetime of Galileo Galilei's first discovery of Jupiter's moons in 1610 to therecent flyby of Jupiter by the Cassini spacecraft on its way to Saturn.The audience will learn about the stormy weather in Jupiter's atmospherewhere storm systems can merge and create giant storms that make hurricaneson Earth look like an afternoon breeze, said Bagenal, a professor in theastrophysical and planetary sciences department.The audience also will see images of the swirling clouds of Jupiter'satmosphere and the strange geology caused by the extremes of ice and moltenlava on the four very different worlds of the Galilean moons.Galileo was launched in October 1989 from space shuttle Atlantis with themission of studying Jupiter and its moons in more detail than ever before.Admission for the show is $5 for adults, $4 for students and $3 for childrenand seniors. Tickets go on sale at 7 p.m. the night of the show. TheSommers-Bausch Observatory will be open to the public after the Fridayevening show, weather permitting. Admission to the observatory is free.For more information about Fiske Planetarium and other shows and programs itoffers, call (303) 492-5001 or visit the Web site at www.colorado.edu/fiske.-30-
RE: Zepplin Europa?
Lack of atmosphere *is* a big deal. It’s my understanding that zeppelins work on the principles of buoyancy. If there’s nothing to be buoyant in, they won’t work, no matter how weak the gravity. Now, if you want to explore Titan, a zeppelin would probably the best possible way to do it. It might be fun to kick that idea around… John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden Street, MS 28 Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Zepplin Europa? In a message dated 2/12/2003 10:37:23 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you're gonna dive into Europa, you need a good site. I doubt this can be located from Earth. Ergo, having a floating observatory is a potential key to allowing later submersibles, as well as providing a site from which to launch such a submersible. No atmosphere? Big deal. Hydrogen is light, so it escapes Europa's light gravity. By adjusting the hydrogen balloons, the 'zeppelin' achieves lift. How does it look? Like a sunflower. The lack of an atmosphere is here made to work FOR the project, rather than against it. Since there is little to no atmosphere, there is no need for an aerodynamic, cigar shape. Instead, the observatory might be shaped like so: O O O # O O O This is a 'top down' view, in ASCI format. The # represents the pod itself. It includes a small nuclear powered plant sufficient to electolyze water ice into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is shunted to the balloons (there are several, perhaps as many as a dozen small balloons; in such a hostile environment, redundancy is a good thing). By adjusting the balloons fill, the probe itself is lifted into the 'air' above the surface. Note that the balloons form a parabola shape -- they do not need to be round at all, but can be wedge shaped; they can be tethered together with electromagnets. Turn on the current, and the wedges magnetize to one another, forming a complete sunflower, with a bowl shape. The entire surface of the balloons can therefore be used as a parabolic focus, for ease in transmitting signals over several AUs of distance back to Earth, or to an orbiting relay point. Of course, the probe itself includes, besides the electolysis engine, a radio transmitter and a camera focused on the surface. There would also need to be a light 'drill' siphon dangling from the bottom of the sunflower, sufficient to siphon up sufficient water ice for use in the balloons, and to also provide liquid oxygen as additional fuel. The drill siphon is also a handy anchor, and ice density and composition test device. Of course, the size of the probe is open to debate. I don't see why it couldn't be quite large, considering the light gravity of Europa, and the limitless supply of water ice. If you lose a balloon petal for some reason, you simply pop up another balloon, turn on the electricity to the magnets, and it is replaced easily enough. What have you accomplished by such a simple, cheap,and elegant solution? You now have an observatory, which can last decades. It can provide in-situ observation, relay pictures of the entire Jovian system back to Earth, and provide fuel and a dock for a submersible. Price? I don't know but a hell of a lot cheaper than agonizing over sending up astronauts to do the same job, with half the efficiency. The technology to do this exists NOW. The capacity to send such a light probe exists NOW, and can be done for far less than the NASA budget proposals. When you stop thinking ROCKETS, the whole solar system opens up... like a sunflower. -- John Harlow Byrne I thought Europa didn't have enough atmosphere to support a Zepplin? Maybe a "moon hopper" would be a cheap means of locomotion that could manage jumbled terrain? Still, it seems the JIMO orbiter will sense enough of the surface. It seems a higher priority would be a "depth first" instead of a "breadth first" search. Regards, Tom Green
RE: Zepplin Europa?
Title: Message An inflatable parabolic dish is a great idea, and I think NASA has done some research into "gossamer" spacecraft: http://www.photomodeler.com/pdf/NASA.pdf Making good use of any meltwater that has been analyzed is also excellent. But unless I'm mistaken, the balloons will not experience lift in a near vacuum. Perhaps just letting the meltwater vaporize to power an air-piston "foot' for locomotion? Or go ahead and make it an explosive piston using the H + O for the extra umph? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:27 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Zepplin Europa?In a message dated 2/12/2003 10:37:23 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you're gonna dive into Europa, you need a good site. I doubt this can be located from Earth. Ergo, having a floating observatory is a potential key to allowing later submersibles, as well as providing a site from which to launch such a submersible.No atmosphere? Big deal. Hydrogen is light, so it escapes Europa's light gravity. By adjusting the hydrogen balloons, the 'zeppelin' achieves lift.How does it look? Like a sunflower. The lack of an atmosphere is here made to work FOR the project, rather than against it. Since there is little to no atmosphere, there is no need for an aerodynamic, cigar shape. Instead, the observatory might be shaped like so: O O O # O O OThis is a 'top down' view, in ASCI format. The # represents the pod itself. It includes a small nuclear powered plant sufficient to electolyze water ice into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is shunted to the balloons (there are several, perhaps as many as a dozen small balloons; in such a hostile environment, redundancy is a good thing). By adjusting the balloons fill, the probe itself is lifted into the 'air' above the surface.Note that the balloons form a parabola shape -- they do not need to be round at all, but can be wedge shaped; they can be tethered together with electromagnets. Turn on the current, and the wedges magnetize to one another, forming a complete sunflower, with a bowl shape. The entire surface of the balloons can therefore be used as a parabolic focus, for ease in transmitting signals over several AUs of distance back to Earth, or to an orbiting relay point.Of course, the probe itself includes, besides the electolysis engine, a radio transmitter and a camera focused on the surface. There would also need to be a light 'drill' siphon dangling from the bottom of the sunflower, sufficient to siphon up sufficient water ice for use in the balloons, and to also provide liquid oxygen as additional fuel. The drill siphon is also a handy anchor, and ice density and composition test device.Of course, the size of the probe is open to debate. I don't see why it couldn't be quite large, considering the light gravity of Europa, and the limitless supply of water ice. If you lose a balloon petal for some reason, you simply pop up another balloon, turn on the electricity to the magnets, and it is replaced easily enough.What have you accomplished by such a simple, cheap,and elegant solution? You now have an observatory, which can last decades. It can provide in-situ observation, relay pictures of the entire Jovian system back to Earth, and provide fuel and a dock for a submersible. Price? I don't know but a hell of a lot cheaper than agonizing over sending up astronauts to do the same job, with half the efficiency. The technology to do this exists NOW. The capacity to send such a light probe exists NOW, and can be done for far less than the NASA budget proposals.When you stop thinking ROCKETS, the whole solar system opens up... like a sunflower.-- John Harlow Byrne
Re: Zepplin Europa?
- Original Message - From: John Sheff To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:38 PM Subject: RE: Zepplin Europa? Lack of atmosphere *is* a big deal. It's my understanding that zeppelins work on the principles of buoyancy. If there's nothing to be buoyant in, they won't work, no matter how weak the gravity. Now, if you want to explore Titan, a zeppelin would probably the best possible way to do it. It might be fun to kick that idea around. __ Yep. Europa has virtually NO atmosphere; any kind of zeppelin there (or on any other virtually airless world) is flat-out impossible. You couldn't even do it on Triton or Pluto, with their faint traces of atmosphere just a few hundred-thousandths as dense as Earth. But Venus, Mars, the giant planets and Titan are a very different matter, and there is very great interest in balloons (actively powered or otherwise) to explore all of them. A Titan zeppelin, in fact, now looks like the most likely next mission to the Saturn system after Cassini, and there's been a lot of design work already done on it (despite our remarkable continuing degree of ignorance as to just what Titan's surface is actually like). As for exploring Europa: it's unique among worlds in that there is a lot more point in digging DOWN as soon as possible rather than roving around on its surface. Once we locate a good landing spot (through orbital radar sounding of the subsurface and other orbital mapping), our emphasis should be on getting something stationary there and then dispatching a subsurface melter probe from it. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: Zepplin Europa?
Ditto for Mars and Venus. In fact from what I've heard, the area just above the cloud-tops on Venus has an atmospheric pressure equal to that of Earth at Sea Level. John Sheff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lack of atmosphere *is* a big deal. Its my understanding that zeppelins work on the principles of buoyancy. If theres nothing to be buoyant in, they wont work, no matter how weak the gravity. Now, if you want to explore Titan, a zeppelin would probably the best possible way to do it. It might be fun to kick that idea around John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden Street, MS 28 Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:27 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Zepplin Europa? In a message dated 2/12/2003 10:37:23 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If you're gonna dive into Europa, you need a good site. I doubt this can be located from Earth. Ergo, having a floating observatory is a potential key to allowing later submersibles, as well as providing a site from which to launch such a submersible.No atmosphere? Big deal. Hydrogen is light, so it escapes Europa's light gravity. By adjusting the hydrogen balloons, the 'zeppelin' achieves lift.How does it look? Like a sunflower. The lack of an atmosphere is here made to work FOR the project, rather than against it. Since there is little to no atmosphere, there is no need for an aerodynamic, cigar shape. Instead, the observatory might be shaped like so: O O O # O O OThis is a 'top down' view, in ASCI format. The # represents the pod itself. It includes a small nuclear powered plant sufficient to electolyze water ice into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is shunted to the balloons (there are several, perhaps as many as a dozen small balloons; in such a hostile environment, redundancy is a good thing). By adjusting the balloons fill, the probe itself is lifted into the 'air' above the surface.Note that the balloons form a parabola shape -- they do not need to be round at all, but can be wedge shaped; they can be tethered together with electromagnets. Turnn on the current, and the wedges magnetize to one another, forming a complete sunflower, with a bowl shape. The entire surface of the balloons can therefore be used as a parabolic focus, for ease in transmitting signals over several AUs of distance back to Earth, or to an orbiting relay point.Of course, the probe itself includes, besides the electolysis engine, a radio transmitter and a camera focused on the surface. There would also need to be a light 'drill' siphon dangling from the bottom of the sunflower, sufficient to siphon up sufficient water ice for use in the balloons, and to also provide liquid oxygen as additional fuel. The drill siphon is also a handy anchor, and ice density and composition test device.Of course, the size of the probe is open to debate. I don't see why it couldn't be quite large, considering the light gravity of Europa, and the limitless supply of water ice. If you lose a balloon petal for some reason, you simply pop up another balloon, turn on the electricity to the magnets, and it is replaced easily enough.What have you accomplished by such a simple, cheap,and elegant solution? You now have an observatory, which can last decades. It can provide in-situ observation, relay pictures of the entire Jovian system back to Earth, and provide fuel and a dock for a submersible. Price? I don't know but a hell of a lot cheaper than agonizing over sending up astronauts to do the same job, with half the efficiency. The technology to do this exists NOW. The capacity to send such a light probe exists NOW, and can be done for far less than the NASA budget proposals.When you stop thinking ROCKETS, the whole solar system opens up... like a sunflower.-- John Harlow Byrne I thought Europa didn't have enough atmosphere to support a Zepplin? Maybe a "moon hopper" would be a cheap means of locomotion that could manage jumbled terrain? Still, it seems the JIMO orbiter will sense enough of the surface. It seems a higher priority would be a "depth first" instead of a "breadth first" search.Regards, Tom Green Sincerely James McEnanlyDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
Re: Zepplin Europa?
Message - Original Message - From: Thomas Green To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:52 PM Subject: RE: Zepplin Europa? But unless I'm mistaken, the balloons will not experience lift in a near vacuum. Perhaps just letting the meltwater vaporize to power an air-piston "foot' for locomotion? Or go ahead and make it an explosive piston using the H + O for the extra umph? While Tom and I have both given reasons why "down" rather than "sideways" should be the first step in exploring Europa, the general technical idea he's talking about -- developing a craft that manufactures its own rocket fuel from in-situ resources, then uses it to fly to another landing site -- is starting to attract serious attention as a future way to explore Mars, and it would also work on any world with surface water ice that could be electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen fuel. However,in such cases we need to ask ourselves: would the very large amount of electrical power we'd need to carry out such fuel manufacture be better used simply to drive a wheeled rover across the surface? == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
What the hell?!!
>From the NY Times article tonight on O'Keefe's Congressional testimony: " 'The circumstances here were it came off of the external tank as the entire shuttle orbiter system was traveling at 3,600 miles an hour,' Mr. O'Keefe said. 'The piece came off, dropped roughly 40 feet at a rate of something like 50 miles an hour' - which he described as the equivalent 'of a Styrofoam cooler blowing off of a pickup truck ahead of you on a highway.' " A few days ago, Roy Dittemore said that the foam hit the Shuttle at 500 miles an hour -- and, for that matter, that the Shuttle was going only about 1900 mph at the time! Either O'Keefe is deliberately lying, or he is once again being merrily led to the slaughter by his underlings. In either case, NASA still seems addicted to fiddling around with the number of zeroes on the end of its numerical estimates. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: What the hell?!!
Bruce, et al., I'm doing it again, but I'll be brief. Fact 1: white colored tank foam piece (recall its natural color is orange) hits Shuttle's left wing; fact 2: foam (plus water ice--many's conjecture,including mine) explodes into cloud of white particles (like a snowball hit); fact 3: left wing tile damage caused Shuttle to overheat, lose control and explode at critical re-entry phase. Coincidence? How about a last-second hit with a piece of space junk or a meteorite? Compare the odds. Ask any of the pros in Las Vegas what happened. From the NY Times article tonight on O'Keefe's Congressional testimony: " 'The circumstances here were it came off of the external tank as the entire shuttle orbiter system was traveling at 3,600 miles an hour,' Mr. O'Keefe said. 'The piece came off, dropped roughly 40 feet at a rate of something like 50 miles an hour' - which he described as the equivalent 'of a Styrofoam cooler blowing off of a pickup truck ahead of you on a highway.' " A few days ago, Roy Dittemore said that the foam hit the Shuttle at 500 miles an hour -- and, for that matter, that the Shuttle was going only about 1900 mph at the time! Either O'Keefe is deliberately lying, or he is once again being merrily led to the slaughter by his underlings. In either case, NASA still seems addicted to fiddling around with the number of zeroes on the end of its numerical estimates. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
