RE: mass drivers for earth-to-orbit cargo lift (was Re: SPACE: Loss of the Satur
Yep. That's what worked for Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It got them into the rocket launching business ... John Sheff 12 Inman Street #64 Cambridge, MA 02139 617-547-1353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Reeve, Jack W. Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: mass drivers for earth-to-orbit cargo lift (was Re: SPACE: Loss of the Satur The best launch platform for any significant space exploration venture is a safe and secure country buffered by an integrated intelligence and military community rendered supremely capable and thoughtfully marshaled internationally, thereby moving the theater of conflict between ourselves and those who wish our version of existence harm well away from our shores, our homes and our children. Seems to me that said military is extremely good at it, and that said intel community is fast catching up to the military's peerless example. Oh, and said launch platform is priceless. Jack W. Reeve == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: Computer renderings of Jupiter and its moons
Hi, Larry, If youre going to do that, you might consider adding this link to an animated Europa screen-saver: http://www.xviews.com/europa.htm. John Sheff Cambridge, MA 02139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of LARRY KLAES Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 11:33 AM To: europa Subject: Computer renderings of Jupiter and its moons I am going to post links to artwork on Europa and related subjects to this list as I find them on the Web. This will be both for information and inspiration in the design of Icepick. This one is a great start: http://www.mmedia.is/~bjj/jupsys_rend.html Larry
RE: $100 Billion Manned Mars Program Funded By Bill Gates,Etc.
I was taken in - for about 10 seconds. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: $100 Billion Manned Mars Program Funded By Bill Gates,Etc. I just hope this isn't an April Fools Day Joke! Rick L. Sterling
RE: Life on Europa: So what?
Wow. So Bob considers evolution to be a goal-directed process, which, after billions of years, culminates in - Bob. At that point, apparently, life has made it. All the Bobless worlds, like Mars and Europa, are failures. Never mind the fact that, even on this planet, the bacterial-based life forms outnumber Bob by a factor of several trillion. Personally, I find them more interesting. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Life on Europa: So what? I am going to post what some might consider (on this list) a very heretical comment. So what if there is life on Europa? (And as a secondary addendum) *so what* if life ever evolved on Mars... We have 10^11+ star systems in our galaxy and probably 10^11 galaxies in the universe. Who really gives a damn if the number of times a life form (presumably bacterial based) goes from 1 to 3 within a solar system. Bottom line -- Life (if ever) on Mars doesn't seem to have made it. Life (if ever) on Europa doesn't seem to have made it either. [I'll arbitrarily define making it as developing to the point where one controls ones own destiny.] It seems of only passing interest to study life that didn't make it. It seems of much more interest to study life that has managed to survive for millions or even billions of years. Since whatever life might have existed on Mars or Europa did/does not survive that cut -- the pursuit of such knowledge does little to enhance the long term prospects of humanity. Why then are we even engaged in the discussion? Robert == 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/
RE: Zepplin Europa?
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 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: On/Off Topic
There IS stuff going on regarding Europa (i.e., this new Prometheus Project), but people are so into flaming about Columbia that, unfortunately, no one seems interested in talking about Europa. (Ive tried.) One of the difficult things Ive had to learn about life is that people have different points of view. This doesnt necessarily mean they are ignorant, or evil, or even - wrong. Intelligent, well-informed, well-intentioned people can be presented with the same facts as me, and come to totally different conclusions. Whats worse, rarely will my arguments however well-reasoned convince them that I am right and they are wrong, nor are they likely to convince me. So Ive given up trying; I still enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, deep down inside, that I AM right! Having said that, I still believe that the shuttle was the best we could come up with at the time given the constraints of technology and budget, that the ISS (or something like it) is a necessary stepping stone to a permanent human presence in space, and the more wonderful unmanned exploration of the solar system gets, the more it whets my appetite for going there in person. I cant imagine anything as exciting as the thought of living in a spacefaring civilization. Maybe someday John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
Europa discussion
Heres an example of people that are talking about Europa. I wish this group was discussing it. Astrobiologists Say Prometheus Jupiter Mission Should Have Landing Craft By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 12:30 pm ET 11 February 2003 TEMPE, ARIZONA -- Scientists here at the NASA Astrobiology Institute General Meeting 2003 this week have welcomed the news that NASAs Project Prometheus work on nuclear electric propulsion has picked as a flagship mission the exploration of the icy moons of Jupiter. To be flown within a decade, a nuclear-powered probe would search for evidence of global subsurface oceans on Jupiter's three icy Galilean moons, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. These oceans may harbor organic material, with the spacecraft moving from moon to moon, training an array of equipment on each world. Scientists have long thought Europa is a prime candidate for life. Its one of the few places in the solar system where liquid water may be found. That being the case, a new phase of exploring the moon should include surface landers, contend astrobiologists meeting here. Site for life A special focus group on future Europa exploration is reviewing plans to understand better the moon and its promise of being a site for life. Any future exploration of Europa about the size of Earths Moon -- should spotlight the identification of sites where signs of past or present life can be found and studied. Thats the view of Ron Greeley, a geology professor at Arizona State University (ASU). Greeley underscored the growing body of evidence that beneath Europas icy crust there is an environment favorable for present life or where signs of past life may be preserved. Wanted: landers NASAs decision to move out on a nuclear-powered mission to Jupiter has created some grumbling, however. Most people, myself included, view this as a good thing, Greeley told SPACE.com. The grumbling stems mostly from the skepticism that the first mission would take place on the time-table given because the needed development is substantial, he said. But once the capability is developed, then there is high potential for science, not only with the ability to shift from one object to another, but also with the potential to carry landed packages, Greeley said. There is a consensus among Europa experts that getting something onto the surface of the moon early is key -- preferably as part of the orbiter mission itself -- rather than doing missions serially, Greeley said. Task at hand Europa has been the subject of repeated examination by the robotic Galileo spacecraft. That data has been critical in showing that Europa is home for a salty liquid ocean. But Greeley and other researchers here believe future studies of the moon will need to focus on surface missions. The task at hand is agreeing on areas across Europa where geologic processes have caused the icy crust to melt, and where organisms would be protected from radiation and provided with an adequate food supply. Now that the Galileo mission is nearly completed, it is time for researchers to sift through the images to shape the current state-of-knowledge about the satellite [of Jupiter] and pose scientific questions to be addressed by future missions, said Patricio Figueredo, an ASU researcher studying the chances for life-on-Europa.
RE: FY 2004 budget
This is all very interesting, but I for one would like to hear more of the dope. In particular, what is this Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter people are talking about? The idea seems to have come out of nowhere; I don't recall it being discussed on this list before. As far as this Europa mailing list is concerned, this could be very good news or it could be very bad news. Is the orbiter going to orbit Europa, or leave that for future more focused missions? Will it map Europa in sufficient detail to determine future landing sites? Will it be able to finally determine the depth of the oceans and the thickness of the ice cover? Can it be equipped with some sort of lander? Will it require radiation-hardened electronics that were such a huge expense to develop for the late-90's Europa Orbiter mission? Will it also orbit Ganymede and Callisto, which may also have subsurface oceans? The questions go on and on, and the answers will have major implications for us Europa enthusiasts ... John Sheff Public Affairs 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 Bruce Moomaw Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:18 PM To: Alan Stern Cc: Simon Mansfield; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jupiter List; Europa Icepick Subject: Re: FY 2004 budget OK, here's the dope. NASA will delay the competitive selection of the second New Frontiers mission and fly the Pluto New Horizons probe first -- which actually allows them to cut the formerly planned FY 2004 budget for the New Frontiers program from $155 million to only $130 million. (And that's assuming that Congress provides no more money for New Horizons in the FY 2003 budget than the $15 million the Bush administration had requested for the NF program. If they do, NH still might fly in 2006 rather than 2007.) Also, the Deep Impact comet probe has survived its cancellation threat unscathed. And that nuclear-propelled Jupiter Tour mission will cost $92.6 million in the FY 204 budget alone,although $25 million of that will be bled off the already-planned NEP and Nuclear Power systems budgets for FY 2004. Also, it will be flown within a decade, not flown within the decade -- so we're presumably talking about a launch by 2013. The mission's official name is Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter, or JIMO. Let's hope GYPPO doesn't turn out to be more appropriate. The only big change in the Mars program seems to be the new initiative to start switching all of NASA's deep space probe communications over to laser links, with the actual implementation being first tested on the Mars 2009 missions. In the other space science fields, the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Division has a big new Beyond Einstein initiative ($69 million this year), including official initiation of LISA, Constellation-X, and a new series of competitive selected smaller Einstein Probes. No big changes in the Origins and Sun-Earth Connections divisions. == 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/
RE: Test beds of ice
What a brilliant idea! That's the kind of ingenious and non-linear thinking we could bring to this project. NASA would never have thought of it - it's not expensive enough... - John in Cambridge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-europa;klx.com]On Behalf Of Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test beds of ice How much ice depth are we looking at for a test? I see from some discussions we are talking about a model around 8 in diameter. There must still be block ice producers in some large city that make large chunks of ice (for ice sculptures, if nothing else). Perhaps one of them could be approached to construct a large column of ice in a freezer for test purposes. They would get some notoriety, a tax break, and make a contribution to science. If our model were not too long, as it melts through a first block of ice a second block could be put in place beneath it as it melted its way through each block. This would give the effect of a very large ice depth depending upon how long everyone was willing to participate. Benefits of this idea: - access to power, convenient to transportation, a laboratory setting, and a lot less cost involved than trekking to the wilds of Washington or Alaska. Another approach - at some location where the temperature is not likely to rise above freezing for an extended period of time, fill a large diameter culvert with snow, ice, water, gravel etc. whatever you think a Europan Ice model might be. Mount the culvert vertically and let the IcePick probe work. This method could still be in a less remote area and therefore less expensive for a test project. Culverts of 20 feet length are not uncommon. It wouldn't be damaged so maybe it could be borrowed from someone. Mickey Schmidt == 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/
RE: Some more thoughts on Proteus/IcePIC
Actually, there is no Russian section (or American section, either) in Antarctica. Under terms of the Antarctic treaty, it's been an international regime reserved for scientific exploration. Under the terms of the treaty, each nation is responsible for regulating its own citizens doing research down there, subject to overall approval from the international Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR). If most of us are Americans, that means we'd have to get approval from the National Science Foundation. But your point about our chances being remote is well taken. It might actually have been easier to get approval from the Russians. - John in Cambridge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-europa;klx.com]On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 10:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more thoughts on Proteus/IcePIC On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shouldn't we include in our goals a cryobot and hydrobot that could test for life in a place like Lake Vostok? The folks from NSF/NASA are working on this. Its been an ongoing effort for a decade or more. Serious scientists will scream very loudly if a bunch of amateurs crack the Lake Vostok seal. Its considered a pristine sealed time capsule environment and a lot of work has/is been/being done to determine how to open it without contaminating it. I believe the past ice-core efforts have drilled to within a few hundred meters of its surface but have explicitly stopped to avoid contamination. (That is even if you could get a permit to operate a machine over Lake Vostok. I believe its in the Russian section of Antarctica and so you would have to get approval from their officials. Thats about as probable as a snowstorm in hell.) Robert == 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/
Europa-related public talks
I just heard about this and it may be of interest to any Europans in the Boston area: NASA and Bostons Museum of Science are hosting a series of public talks in the Astrobiology Guest Speaker Series on Friday evenings beginning at 6pm. Two of the upcoming talks may be of particular interest to folks on this list: November 1 The Oceans of Europa: Potential Habitats for Life, by Nicole Spaun (NASA Ames Research Center) November 8 Extreme Microorganisms at Hydrothermal Vents: Models for Extraterrestrial Life? by Andreas Teske (University of North Carolina) Im going to try to make it to both. For more info, check out www.mos.org/cst/article/4899/. - John in Cambridge
RE: [Spaceref-daily] The Mars Institute: A New Resource for a New Century of Mar (fwd)
I know someone that would debate you. I recall that during the sixties there was some kind of psychedelic cult - 'The Church of the Boo-Hoo Bible', or something - that maintained that the planet Saturn was the source of all evil and bad vibes in the universe. Their proposed solution was to destroy the planet Saturn. I'm sure that, if they were around today, they would be advocating the dismantling of Saturn as a priority before any dismantling of the planet Mars. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-europa;klx.com]On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Spaceref-daily] The Mars Institute: A New Resource for a New Century of Mar (fwd) Mickey Schmidt observed: How will this organization (Mars Institute) do anything that the Mars Society is not already set up to do? It looks like they are positioning themselves to divide and dilute the community interested persons who want to further Mars Exploration, support, and interest. I'm *very* tired of this discussion. The exploration or colonization of Mars is a *stupid* idea. The correct approach is to wait until we have robust molecular nanotechnology and then analyze Mars while we dismantle it and lift it out of its gravity well. Theoretical analysis suggests this could be done in as little as *12 hours*. I'm throwing down the glove here -- I challenge anybody (with a rational thought process) to debate me on this topic. Mars should not be explored, it should not be colonized -- it should be dismantled (dismantling can involve a quite extensive exploration but that is a secondary effect). Robert == 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/
RE: Life and SETI [was RE: Survival of the Flattest]
We already are. It is a common technique for detecting 'astrometric' and 'spectroscopic' binaries and multiple star systems. The trick is to distinguish an artificial unseen body from the numerous examples of natural ones. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James McEnanly Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Life and SETI [was RE: Survival of the Flattest] Why not look for stars that are pertrubed by an unseen body, looking for 'gravity's silhouette', as it were. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/9/2002 5:29:17 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED], responding to my comments, wrote: He suggests that we can't find suns transmitting signals, because those suns are already cloaked, and pumping energy into vast 'ringworlds'. Actually, more like sphere-worlds but that is a technical detail. Yes, sphere worlds is more along your line. I described it as a 'ringworld' as that is the Niven/Pournelle title most likely to be understood rapidly, ie, communication efficiency. I'd have to ask: why would a civilization which has the capacity to create an entire sphere of material around a sun be satisfied to simply hang around that sun, and contemplate their navels (or extraterrestial version of navels)? They don't have to do this when they can observe practically everything. We are almost to the edge of the universe now with our puny little 2-10m telescopes -- what are we going to be able to see when we have millions (or more) telescopes the diameter of the moon? How good is a super telescope for seeing under a layer of ice, or behind a cloud, or under a mile thick sheet of lead? Yes, you can extrapolate information. But, again, that only takes you so far. It's like this: sure, the air force can bomb an enemy back into the stone age... but to win the war, you've got to have men on the ground. Same goes for science and/or the gathering of knowledge -- there is no substitute for personal interaction. They have plenty to observe and think about. I would certainly agree that they may go on walkabout -- but if you have to haul the mass of a solar system with you you don't do it very quickly. In my own anthrocentricism, if I were the civilization capable of doing that little feat of wonder, I'd be sending out as many seed pods as possible... both for the possibility of discovering other life (and absorbing it, borg-like), or because of the frontier concept... Ah, but how many sheep do you see Secretary Powell appointing as ambassadors to foreign countries? Generally speaking we try to send relatively human intellectual level equivalents. Sending seed pods is something plants do because they haven't got any precognition (something you pointed out as being valuable in your previous message). You're the nanotech guy. You mean to tell me that my imaginative foray into 'colony pods' isn't possible? According to some, we humans are just a bunch of genetic information, 88% water, and some basic chemicals. So... why not grow a scientist, and then pump his (its?) head full of the directives you're looking for? A saganite might suggest that it would be better to simply send a mechanical probe. Again, I counter -- if you find something REALLY interesting, sooner or later you're going to want a real live person to tinker with it. A mechanical probe just won't do. If, for instance, in 2030, we landed an automated probe on Europa, and it transmitted back definitive proof of a living organism there, how long do you think it would take before some humans made the trip there themselves? if you send out numerous strands of the same species, and separate them across an entire galaxy and 10,000 years of time, then you would presumeably have more disparate minds considering the same subjects, If you do that and allow them the ability to adapt (a feature that may be required for their survival), then you may very well be sowing the seeds of your own destruction. [I think Linda Nagata's Vast may have the best perspective I've read on the risks of enabling self-evolution -- but Earth's literature is filled with examples of what happens when the children grow up to desire what the parent's have.] Sure, sure...you have the Cronus phenomenon, where a progenitor must eat its own children to ensure its own survival. Sooner or later, there may come a child who is a bit too big or clever to be eaten. If our prospective star-faring species is truly interested in the progression of science / knowledge / power, however, might it not see its extinction by a daughter species as progress by a new and improved model? In other words, the GOAL might be to extinguish itself, if the
RE: First good data on diameters of the biggest Kuiper Belt objects
We may have to settle for Epsilon Eridani 3 or Tau Ceti 4. It works, but its kind of unimaginative - John from Cambridge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James McEnanly Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First good data on diameters of the biggest Kuiper Belt objects You're right. The Greco-Roman Pantheon is just about exhausted. I am wondering what we are going to do when we get serious about naming extrasolar planets. Bruce Moomaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=9446 This is a measurement using the technique -- whose accuracy has already been proven on other outer Solar System objects -- of measuring their thermal radiation, a technique not falsely biased by any assumptions about their albedos. (Also, the measurement for Quaoar agrees very well with the Hubble telescope's visual estimate.) By the way, judging from Quaoar and Varuna, the names of the KBOs are finally going to start honoring other human mythologies besides the Greek -- and about time, too. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ Sincerely James McEnanly Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, more faith.yahoo.com
RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth
Of course, all of these objects - J002E3, Cruithne, the Moon, and the Earth - ultimately revolve around the Sun. It's all a matter of definition and we can argue forever about what to call what. Nature will always get the last word... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of adam . Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth the dictionary also says 'minor planet revolves around sun' and since you stated that Cruithne appears to cross the orbit of venus and mars too but did not mention anything about it relvolving around the sun i would thus assume that it is not a minor planet, and i never said that Cruithne should be called a moon, but it sure shouldn't be called a minor planet. I like Moonlet. From: Thomas Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:14:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc3-f7.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.236.142]) by mc3-s18.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:16:10 -0700 Received: from klx.com ([161.58.236.65]) by mc3-f7.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:15:47 -0700 Received: (klx@localhost) by klx.com (8.11.6) id g8CGERq84226; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:14:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com [47.103.122.112]) by klx.com (8.11.6) id g8CGEQV84221; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:14:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zrc2c011.us.nortel.com (zrc2c011.us.nortel.com [47.103.120.51])by zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g8CGESW19764for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:14:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by zrc2c011.us.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)id RL92Z3VZ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:14:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: klx.com: klx set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2002 16:15:47.0701 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7773250:01C25A77] Yes, my dictonary says a moon revolves around the planet. Cruithne has the funkiest orbit I've ever seen, and it appears to cross the orbit of venus and mars too? So, my brain resists calling it a moon, and instead a minor planet that is pushed around by earth. Here's a nice website depicting its orbit: http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/cruithne.html Cheers, Tom the confused -Original Message- From: CHRIS CANTRELL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:46 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth I did a little web research on Cruithne and found that it is in a strange three-body relationship with the Earth, Luna, and Sol ... not technically in direct orbit around the Earth like a normal moon would be. Fun stuff! Yes ... the definition of minor planet is orbiting the Sun; asteroids and comets that orbit the sun are thus minor planets. But once again ... I am no rocket scientist. -Original Message- From: adam . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth I didn't read anywhere that either of these objects were orbiting the sun. They are in fact orbiting Earth If it is determined that J002E3 is natural it will become Earth's third natural satellite. Earth's second one is called Cruithne. It was discovered in 1986 and it takes a convoluted horseshoe path around our planet as it is tossed about by the Earth's and the Moon's gravity. If it is determined that J002E3 is natural it will become Earth's third natural satellite. Earth's second one is called Cruithne. It was discovered in 1986 and it takes a convoluted horseshoe path around our planet as it is tossed about by the Earth's and the Moon's gravity. That's what the document said about them. I don't see where it says that J002E3 is sharing orbit with Earth, but it is infact orbiting Earth, which would not make it a minor planet. Minor planets have to orbit the sun don't they?. From: Robert Crawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:18:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from mc4-f40.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.175]) by mc4-s8.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:20:50 -0700 Received: from klx.com ([161.58.236.65]) by mc4-f40.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:20:48 -0700 Received: (klx@localhost) by klx.com (8.11.6) id g8CFIkI69631; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:18:46 -0600 (MDT)
RE: New 'moon' found around Earth
I've seen mention of the possibility that J002E3 may impact the Moon at some point; one source quoted the odds of that happening in 2003 as high as 20%. If that occurs (on this encounter or any future one) would the observation of the impact provide any useful scientific information? I know the Apollo lunar seismometers were turned off long ago in a budget-cutting move (that darned human exploration is so expensive!) but would observation of the impact reveal something about the composition of the lunar subsurface, such as the presence of volatiles? I know that was unsuccessfully attempted with Lunar Prospector ... - John from Cambridge -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Moomaw Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:02 PM To: Europa Icepick Subject: Re: New 'moon' found around Earth - Original Message - From: adam . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: RE: BBC E-mail: New 'moon' found around Earth the dictionary also says 'minor planet revolves around sun' and since you stated that Cruithne appears to cross the orbit of venus and mars too but did not mention anything about it relvolving around the sun i would thus assume that it is not a minor planet, and i never said that Cruithne should be called a moon, but it sure shouldn't be called a minor planet. I like Moonlet. Actually, Cruithne is by no stretch of the imagination a moon of Earth -- it's just a Sun-orbiting asteroid which has been nudged by repeated gravitational tugs from Earth into a resonant orbit; one whose timing is synchronized with that of Earth (although, as mentioned, its perihelion is far closer to the Sun than Earth's and its aphelion is much farther away). You could use the same reasoning to say that Pluto is a moon of Neptune -- or that Io is a moon of Europa! In short, all those stories about Cruithne as a moon of Earth are just further displays of the tendency of newpapers to play tabloid whenever they're dealing with even moderately complex scientific issues that can be misrepresented to the general public in a sensationalistic way. But this latest thingie really is orbiting Earth. I agree that it's probably the S-4B stage from Apollo 12, which had a slight malfunction during the deflection maneuver intended to slingshot it past the Moon and into solar orbit (where the S-4Bs for Apollos 8 through 11 ended up). It's probably too big to be the final stage from any of the Soviet lunar and planetary probe boosters (although some of them were pretty big). It would be worthwhile trying to make more observations of its shape and spectral chracteristics, though, on the off-chance that it really is a temporarily captured natural asteroid. By the way, the problem of officially labeling moon is even more maddening -- and ultimately arbitrary -- than the problem of whether Pluto counts as a planet. Does every single ring particle of Saturn deserve to be called a moon and given a name? If not, then we're going to have to set some kind of size cutoff for the label (just as we have to do with planets). Karkoschka's abstract at the upcoming DPS meeting extrapolates that there are probably about 100 irregular moons of Jupiter bigger than 1 km diameter -- God knows how many smaller ones there are. And, yes, it is possible for a solar-orbiting object to be temporarily captured into orbit around a planet and then later depart again -- this happens regularly with Jupiter and comets, none of which are ever labeled as its moons. Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one such comet which suffered the relatively rare fate of eventually crashing into the planet instead. Final note: Michael Swanwick recently wrote an SF story in which it IS decided that every single ring particle of Saturn is a moon and must be named, and so some poor government bureaucrat is assigned to spend his entire life doing only that. Upon discovering from the photos of the particles automatically sent to him from Saturn orbiters that one of the particles is actually an ancient alien spacecraft -- and knowing that no one will ever, ever read through his list after he's finally done -- he names it Youshouldhavepaidmemore and then makes no further mention of it to anyone. == 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/
RE: The snake devours its tail
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The snake devours its tail In a message dated 5/8/2002 9:16:47 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keep at it, Mr. Moomaw. If you are successful, you will destroy the only working beachhead we now have in space. All we see from you is Bring it down, destroy it, stop any possible uses of it, stop wasting our resources on something I consider worthless. How about suggesting something positive for a change? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Frankly, I'm a little tired of your polemics against the ISS. G. B. Leatherwood This particular beachhead is not worth maintaining -- and I'm hardly the only one who thinks so; so does most of the space science community itself. The confirmation of my long-term suspicion that even microgravity biologists might have been happier with a man-tended unmanned platform is the last straw. As for the positive suggestion, I'm in full agreement with Freeman Dyson (who can hardly be called anti-space): shut down manned space travel to an absolute minimum until we get launch costs WAY down, and in the meantime focus on unmanned missions, which can be miniaturized to an amazing degree. People cannot be. And, believe me, you can't possibly be as tired of my anti-ISS polemics as I am of Congress and the White House making wasteful and counterproductive idiots of themselves on this subject -- as they have been for at least 15 years. Having considered both sides of this particular coin, here's my take on the situation: Yes, Congressmen frequently involve themselves in areas in which they should not. Many of them probably grew up watching reruns of Star Trek, and are trying to recreate that situation on a short budget. That's the nature of government. It will always do the political solution, leaving the more economical solution to itself, by design or default. Of course, the problem with taking a political approach to space (sending manned missions there) is the danger that they will fail, thereby destroying the remaining political support that there is to space (such as the 5 year hiatus in effective space launches after the Christa McAuliffe catastrophe). It is entirely possible that the current manned mission will fail, either catastrophically, or by simply failing to acheive anything worthy of the costs of the mission. In other words, expect government sponsored missions to be political, and therefore manned, and prone to failure. The true solution, in my mind, is to take government itself out of the equation, and begin plans for a non-governmental space facility. As the world currently stands, it is now possible to assemble support from every major space faring nation, and from their scientists and industries directly. Why wait on the government to get things right? There are several launch sites around the world which can launch a rocket for a fraction of what it costs to send up a manned mission. Why not do as Robert Clements has suggested, and simply solicit support for an unmanned mission, without any government involvement at all? Such support can come from corporations. Of course, in that case, any prospective missions would have a profit-motive, rather than a political motive. Whenever someone suggests private enterprise as the solution to a robust space program, my response is, Well, whats stopping them? The third alternative is to solicit support from non-profit, non-government entities. Are there enough such people in the entire world? Would it be possible, for instance, to create a worldwide group of scientists and citizens, whose sole purpose was to design and launch unmanned science missions to space destinations? The Planetary Society is doing quite nicely with this approach. Of course, many out there will throw up their hands in despair, at the prospect of the difficultly of building such a network... it would take 5-10 years, and too much money, they'll suggest. But then, consider the alternative: 30 more years of begging from the government, and being disappointed with the results. -- JH Byrne
RE: Icepick Website
Greetings, Hibai, I, too, am learning how to do a web site. Yours looks terrific! I would encourage you to keep up the good work, and please let me know if there is any way I can be of any help ... - John S., Cambridge, MA, USA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hibai Unzueta Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Icepick Website Sorry this is the actual message: I have a proposal for all of you folks. And specially for the list administrator and the maker of our list- website. I've worked out a draft of a website for Icepick (mainly to try to catch attention -- publicity). The addres is http://www.euskalnet.net/iunzueta/icepick It would eb great if you saw it and told me you views. Larry and Jeff: If you agree I can work on sort of renewing the website. Whats your opinion. Thanks to all. -- Hibai Unzueta Telecommunications student == 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/
Cryobot prototype
Have any of you seen this story about a cryobot being tested in Spitzbergen? - John S. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/robot-02a.html
RE: Private Enterprise
Why wait until a lunar/asteroid infrastructure is reaping profits? In view of the fact that entrepreneurs have already thoroughly overexploited one planet - Earth - let's levy the tax now. Let's see how far you get with THAT idea; is there any reason to assume that they would like it any better in the future than they would today? - John S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William P. Niedringhaus Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Private Enterprise Bring on the entrepreneurs to mine the asteroids and moon (where the real riches are). Thats the fast way to get humanity into space. Meanwhile, protect Mars and Europa till we can study them properly and figure out what protection is needed for any life there. Once the infrastructure is reaping profits, a small research tax could pay for thorough Solar System exploration. - Bill == 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/
RE: JFK Letter About US-USSR Manned Missions To Mars Venus
Why does this thread keep appearing on this mailing list? I thought we were to supposed to disavow any knowledge of its existence - John S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JFK Letter About US-USSR Manned Missions To Mars Venus Click here: Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges-This hyperlink from the US Department Of State takes you to a document which includes several letters between President Kennedy Soviet Premier Khrushchev. In document #41(March 7,1962) JFK proposed joint US-USSR manned missions to Mars Venus. Premier Khrushchev wrote back(Document 43-March 20, 1962) stated that he agreed with JFK about US-USSR space cooperation including eventual joint missions to Mars Venus. Rick L. Sterling
Is it all for nothing?
Have any of you seen the disturbing stories popping up today about OMB threatening to cancel *all* Outer Planets Exploration in the next decade? Check out (www.nasawatch.com and www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-01h.html), which report that OMB is pretty much got their minds set on axing either the Pluto Kuiper Express mission or the Europa Orbiter mission (or both!) - Congress and the scientific community be damned. Please say it isn't so. If it is, it means our dreams of exploring the Outer Planets in our lifetimes are about to be number-crunched out of existence ... - John == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: Europa ice thickness
And for some of us even older (and thus more impatient) folks, I wonder if this is range of ice thickness is something that can be penetrated by radar on a Europa Orbiter or Europa flybys or whatever form the Next Mission will take ... - John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gary McMurtry Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Europa ice thickness John, Yep, you can heat and limited drill (?) your way down with current, and near-future technology. Problems will be encountering the non-ice components, like layers of salt, impactor debris or sediments advected up from the Europan seafloor (!), which can stop or deflect the melt probe. These layers are interesting targets for life exploration, however. If enough of us are in a hurry to know about the ice composition and life possibilities contained therein (like some of us older folks), then a series of penetrator probes may get us some pertinent answers at selected ice depths with very near-future technology. I'm sure Bruce will have a few additional comments... Gary I assume some of you may have seen the recent stories about folks estimating the ice thickness on Europa based on impact crater morphology (www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0111/09europa/); these studies seem to suggest the ice thickness is at least 3-4 km. If it is of this order (and not much greater), how difficult would it be to penetrate it using robotic techniques? Are we talking technology that won't be available for decades, or is this something that is a pretty straight-forward extension of current technology, such as that being developed for ice drilling in Lake Vostok? - John == 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/
[no subject]
I assume some of you may have seen the recent stories about folks estimating the ice thickness on Europa based on impact crater morphology (www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0111/09europa/); these studies seem to suggest the ice thickness is at least 3-4 km. If it is of this order (and not much greater), how difficult would it be to penetrate it using robotic techniques? Are we talking technology that won't be available for decades, or is this something that is a pretty straight-forward extension of current technology, such as that being developed for ice drilling in Lake Vostok? - John == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: ISS Problen Caused By Previous Limitations On Funding
Hi, Bruce, Please dont hold back why dont you let us know how you *really* feel about the Space Station? Seriously, I agree with Rick on this one. And I dont think the discussion is well served by using alarmist words like blackmail regarding Russias request for the US to provide some direction as to where this project (in which they certainly have a stake) is headed. I understand the Canadians and Europeans are likewise concerned. This controversy smacks of the longtime debate about unmanned vs. manned space exploration. For those arguing in favor of the former to the detriment of the later, the hidden assumption that if only complicated and expensive projects like the Space Station were shelved, there would be much more $ available for unmanned exploration. As if! I would bet any funds freed up by the cancellation of the ISS would immediately be diverted toward the militarization of space, i.e., missile defense. Assume for the moment that there are people strongly in favor of human space exploration. Ultimately, this may involve lunar settlements, Martian exploration, and perhaps even manned missions to Jupiter. Is not a space station in Earth orbit a logical and necessary precursor? It is, after all, impossible to study the long-term effects of weightlessness on Earth; this *is* ISSs primary mission. Now, you may argue, and with great justification, with how the space station was built, the cost, the mismanagement, the current limitations on research, ad nauseam. I agree that the project was poorly implemented, and I also agree with those who lay much of the blame on Congress and successive administrations, whose myopia inevitably forces projects to go through a grueling annual budgeting process with largely unpredictable results. *Of course* this results in soaring total project costs over the years! Unfortunately, even though the Young Report has identified this problem, I cant imagine that this process will change in the foreseeable future. Having said all that, I remain overjoyed at the news that the Pluto-Kuiper mission is back on track, there is support for a strong Mars program, and space science in general is coming out a winner! - John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ISS Problen Caused By Previous Limitations On Funding Dear Bruce, I totally disagree with your comments about the ISS. However, I respect your opinions concerns. ISS should be funded at a much higher level than it is now funded. I also believe that the NASA space science budget should be funded at a higher level than now(2002). This increase in space science funding should include,at the very least, several billion dollars to start a Manned Mars Exploration Program several billion more for a very extensive Europa exploration program(including several Europa surface landers with life detection instruments and an eventual manned expedition to Europa several other of Jupiter's moons(Callisto Ganymede). Thanks again for your comments!! Rick L. Sterling
Re: Notes on deep-space propulsion
Thanks for the explanation regarding ion drives of the DS-1 class not being intended for outer-planet exploration. One wonders, however, why it will not be used on the MESSENGER mission to Mercury - an inner-planet mission if there ever was one! Instead, MESSENGER will follow a long, looping trajectory (five years and 4 gravity assists!) to finally get to a planet in an 88-day orbit. I realize that Mercury is deep in the solar gravity well, but - by the same token - wouldn't that make a solar-powered ion drive that much more efficient? At 11:44 PM 8/1/01 -0700, Bruce Moomaw wrote: - Original Message - From: John Sheff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:29 PM Subject: Re: Gary McMurtry's question At 08:02 PM 8/1/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7-31-01 7:45:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Similarly, Deep Space 1 has wonderfully demonstrated the use of low-cost, autonomous, ion-drives to explore the Outer Planets. A great success - yes? Yet we STILL have to spend billions of $ to develop a fast drive for a Pluto-Kuiper Express Mission to get a probe there by 2020? Somebody please explain to me what's going on Are we learning ANYTHING from these precursor missions? Deep Space 1 did not demonstrate ion drives to the Outer Planets, it demonstrated ion drives for inner solar system exploration (asteriods/comets). SUCH AS? Please be as specific as possible, including any proposed Mission timelines. I certainly haven't seen any. One of the three finalists for selection of the next Discovery mission -- Dawn -- would use 3 NSTAR engines to cruise around the Asteroid Belt, orbit Vesta and Ceres for 9 months each, and make fast flybys of 6-12 other asteroids. See http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/index.html . (This is as good a time as any to announce to the group that C.T. Russell's just told me that the revised Dawn website -- with the changes that have been made in the mission because of the Discovery program funding delay -- will be up some time this week. He also told me that the new launch date would be June 2006, and that the Mars gravity-assist flyby will be eliminated, with the spiral out to the Belt now being done entirely by the ion engines; apparently they have enough fuel margin to do this. Also, I've learned that the new date for the Kepler extrasolar-planet telescope -- should it be picked instead -- is now Oct. 2006.) NASA also has a comet-nucleus rendezvous and landing, and intact sample return to Earth, very high on its list of mission priorities -- very similar to the cancelled 2004 Deep Space-4 mission that was set for 2004, which used 4 NSTAR engines -- although it may not be launched now until about 2010. And one design for the Mars Sample Return mission also uses them. When Scot assured you that NSTAR ion engines or something very similar are a dead certainty for Solar System missions in NASA's near future, he was stating a plain fact. JPL has done some studies on NSTAR ion engines for PKE. Unfortunately, it only pays off (on a Delta 4 class LV) with 10 - 15kW of solar power, 3 to 4 NSTAR ion engines, and inner solar system gravity assists, of which the opportunities are limited . Look, let's get real. Opportunities for any Outer Planets mission depend not so much on Launch Windows as on the whims of the American government. They depend on both. Even if you have a government chomping at the bit to launch a Pluto mission, getting one to Pluto in time to observe its atmosphere without a Jupiter gravity-assist flyby would be a very chancy proposition, because it would indeed take not only an ion drive but more than one gravity-assist flyby of Venus and/or Mars. Ion propulsion is almost useless for a Europa Orbiter mission because most of the delta-V is at Jupiter, in a major gravity well, at a significant distance from the sun. Ion propulsion makes a lot more sense for outer planet missions when you go to non-solar energy (the n-word) and crank up the power a bit. Yup, but the N-thing is Politically Unacceptable, so let's get over it. Not necessarily -- as Scot says, you could get quite a lot of benefit in the outer Solar System from even a low-powered ion engine run by an enlarged RTG. Consider, also, the possibility of substituting a small conventional nuclear reactor using uranium-235, which has a half-life about 700,000 times longer than plutonium-238 (and about 700 times longer than the plutonium-239 which is so often used in ground-based reactors because it's cheaper than U-235). If a launch or re-entry acident sprinkled that on people's heads, there would be no significant health hazard from it. As for Europa Orbiter, though, solar-powered ion propulsion WOULD allow an additional boost out to Jupiter. As I understand it, it was seriously considered for the EO mission, but studies finally
Focus drift
Hi, folks, I've been a subscriber/lurker to the mailing list for a while, and (granted that news updates on Europa ARE infrequent), the list still fills my mailbox just TOO often with just TOO much discussion that is off-topic, and REDUNDANT with news that I get anyway from other generalized planetary-exploration sources. So, after much thought, I am regrettably unsubscribing. I hope and assume that we will all get to see the Europan Ocean in our lifetimes. As my Wicca friend Debbie says (in a different (?)context), we will all meet on the same shore. - John == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Cryobots
Hi, Bruce: Re: your comment, radioisotopes, probably to heat the ice directly? I wonder how the Europan life forms (if any) will feel about that (i.e., what's the environmental impact?) Is that what they are proposing to do at Lake Vostok? (I doubt it.) Wouldn't it be less disruptive to leave the power source on the surface ice? John Sheff At 09:32 PM 4/29/01 -0700, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Reeve, Jack W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, April 29, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: RE: Two new online articles about SETI from ST Hi Gary, Yeah, I read Wonderful Life. Utterly astounding book; fantastic creatures. I used to live about 120 miles from the Burgess shale outcrop, though I never got up there. It depends on what you mean by nukes -- our plans from the start have been to melt our way gradually down through the ice with a small self-contained vehicle with a heated nose (the Cryobot), which (depending on what you want to do with it) can either just let the ice refreeze again behind it, or (for more advanced expeditions) can leave a reinforced hollow shaft behind. But we haven't ben able to come up with any adequate heat source for that nose other than radioisotopes, probably to heat the ice directly (since this is far more efficient than using a nuclear reactor to power electric heaters). Bruce Moomaw == 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/
Re: Presentation for a Dutch Class Room 8 years old
The best one I've seen is on the JPL Europa Orbiter web site: www.jpl.nasa.gov/ice_fire//europao.htm The image itself (which shows a Europa "hydrobot" among some "black smokers") is at: www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/browse/p48326.gif Good luck on your daughter's presentation... - John At 09:42 PM 4/28/01 +0200, you wrote: My daughter, 8 years old, will do a presentation on the Europa subject one of these days. To stimulate the class we want to show some possible inhabitants of the sub surface ocean (which could stimulate the thoughts of the age of children of that age). Help me please with some artists impressions ? Kind Regards, Debby den Besten (8). == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
