8 ms·

> The Europa Clipper will not orbit Europa, but instead orbit Jupiter and conduct 44 flybys of Europa at altitudes from 25 to 2,700 km (16 to 1,678 mi) each dur

> The Europa Clipper will not orbit Europa, but instead orbit Jupiter and conduct 44 flybys of Europa at altitudes from 25 to 2,700 km (16 to 1,678 mi) each during its 3.5-year mission.[…] The Europa Clipper could conceivably flyby at low altitude through the plumes of water vapor erupting from the moon's ice crust, thus sampling its subsurface ocean without having to land on the surface and drill through the ice. Excitingly, this seems to be a real opportunity for the Europa Clipper mission. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Arriving in April 2030 oof Jupiter is so far away. I hope the next generation of heavy lift vehicles allows for shorter transit to the outer planets.
- adrianN 5y ago
  I'm a bit sad that we didn't pursue nuclear propulsion for interplanetary missions. A nuclear rocket could reach Jupiter much faster.
  - raylad 5y ago
    It was developed and ready to be flown, but the project was canceled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#NERVA_XE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#NERVA_XE Recently, work has started up again, and two companies have active contracts to begin developing nuclear engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#Current_research_in_US_since_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#Current...
  - bserge 5y ago
    People are afraid of nuclear power plants. You think they'd ever allow nuclear space flight? Think of the 0.05% chance of launch failure, all that radioactive shit spread in the air, alongside all the other dangerous shit we already put there willingly!
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Yes there are very good reasons not to put 10000 nukes on a ship and try to launch it. But it would be extremely cool to have manned missions to the gas giants and to send probes to nearby stars. I don't see how that will be possible without nuclear propulsion.
      - robbedpeter 5y ago
        Asteroid mining first - we will need processing and refinement infrastructure in space, to start building facilities that aren't in earth orbit, so they don't pose radioactive threats. It's thought that there is a lot of uranium and other nuclear fuels available in asteroids throughout the solar system. Once asteroid mining kicks off, all sorts of possibilities open up that are overly expensive or dangerous for earth based enterprises.
        ianai 5y ago
        Totally. I wonder about turning larger asteroid(s) into colonies/ships themselves. There’s one large one that already orbits between mars and the outer planets with a sizable radius. I wonder about hollowing it out and building essentially a large city in its interior. Edit-I think it’s 1036 Ganymed.
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        Mi pensa da beltalowda gonya fo tenye tugut liviting ere da belte! We just need to crack longevity, space elevators, and asteroid mining. A lot of the engineering for in system spaceflight is engineered already. With ever improving automation, belt mining probably won't ever be a human occupation in the way 20th century sci-fi envisioned, but living in space is looking like it will be very safe. We'll need lots of water shielding, massive engines and this massive ships, and deliberate regimented exercise and medical monitoring. We'll have to incorporate massive redundancies in environment and nutrition and waste processing, so long term high output nuclear will likely be the only option. I'm excited to see the birth of space mining in the next decade or three.
  - antupis 5y ago
    How safely we can ship nuclear rocket to deep space. That kinda rocket exploding at launch and basically turning dirty bomb could cause some nasty damage to enviroment and would be pr disaster.
    - papito 5y ago
      The newer Mars rovers use nuclear power, although obviously, not the same type needed for propulsion.
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      Do you really think nobody thinks of these issues?
    - arisAlexis 5y ago
      Imagine detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere on purpose. Oops, we did it already.
    - swiley 5y ago
      Meh, we've put plenty of various kinds of nuclear reactors in space.
      - m4rtink 5y ago
        Also if you don't activate the reactor until after launch the fuel is still effectively just heavy metal.
        ianai 5y ago
        Or even build it out there. Ie launch mostly pre built components. A ship that never has to worry about first leaving earths gravity well can have vastly different characteristics than something we’d launch from here.
- profmonocle 5y ago
  Reminds me of watching New Horizons launch as a High School junior, then excitedly watching the images come in when I was in my mid-20's. Really drives home how unbelievably vast astronomical distances are, even just within our one solar system. One of the fastest objects humanity has ever built, and it took more than a third of my life to reach its destination.
- wcoenen 5y ago
  As far as I understand, the next generation of heavy lift vehicles (i.e. Starship, New Glenn, SLS) will not allow us to do better than a Hohmann transfer. And that would still mean waiting for the launch window to Jupiter (period 1.1 years) and a transfer of 3.7 years. So Clipper's cruise of 5.5 years really isn't so bad. Future space probes will likely continue to save delta-v by taking a slightly slower trajectory with gravity assists.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Interesting. Even with orbital refueling of starship?
    - WJW 5y ago
      Hohmann transfers (the most efficient path) take a fixed amount of delta-V, so how much fuel you have does not really matter. You could probably find a quicker path if you are willing to sacrifice some efficiency, but even then it is going to take several years to get there with current technology. Since probes don't really care about travel time, might as well take the most efficient path so that you have fuel left over for interesting maneuvers near the destination.
      - Valgrim 5y ago
        Or more interesting probes, such as deep-drilling equipment
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    Starship could open up a lot of options. There’s no reason it couldn’t launch a small probe loaded to the gills with fuel and engines and make a shorter trip.
  - baq 5y ago
    Just imagine getting a 90 ton kick stage for a 500kg probe like New Horizons.
    - deleted 5y ago
EdwardDiego 5y ago
And by not landing on the ice, we won't risk angering Star Child Dave Bowman.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

Arriving in April 2030 oof Jupiter is so far away. I hope the next generation of heavy lift vehicles allows for shorter transit to the outer planets.

adrianN 5y ago
I'm a bit sad that we didn't pursue nuclear propulsion for interplanetary missions. A nuclear rocket could reach Jupiter much faster.
- raylad 5y ago
  It was developed and ready to be flown, but the project was canceled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#NERVA_XE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#NERVA_XE Recently, work has started up again, and two companies have active contracts to begin developing nuclear engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#Current_research_in_US_since_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#Current...
- bserge 5y ago
  People are afraid of nuclear power plants. You think they'd ever allow nuclear space flight? Think of the 0.05% chance of launch failure, all that radioactive shit spread in the air, alongside all the other dangerous shit we already put there willingly!
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Yes there are very good reasons not to put 10000 nukes on a ship and try to launch it. But it would be extremely cool to have manned missions to the gas giants and to send probes to nearby stars. I don't see how that will be possible without nuclear propulsion.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      Asteroid mining first - we will need processing and refinement infrastructure in space, to start building facilities that aren't in earth orbit, so they don't pose radioactive threats. It's thought that there is a lot of uranium and other nuclear fuels available in asteroids throughout the solar system. Once asteroid mining kicks off, all sorts of possibilities open up that are overly expensive or dangerous for earth based enterprises.
      - ianai 5y ago
        Totally. I wonder about turning larger asteroid(s) into colonies/ships themselves. There’s one large one that already orbits between mars and the outer planets with a sizable radius. I wonder about hollowing it out and building essentially a large city in its interior. Edit-I think it’s 1036 Ganymed.
        robbedpeter 5y ago
        Mi pensa da beltalowda gonya fo tenye tugut liviting ere da belte! We just need to crack longevity, space elevators, and asteroid mining. A lot of the engineering for in system spaceflight is engineered already. With ever improving automation, belt mining probably won't ever be a human occupation in the way 20th century sci-fi envisioned, but living in space is looking like it will be very safe. We'll need lots of water shielding, massive engines and this massive ships, and deliberate regimented exercise and medical monitoring. We'll have to incorporate massive redundancies in environment and nutrition and waste processing, so long term high output nuclear will likely be the only option. I'm excited to see the birth of space mining in the next decade or three.
- antupis 5y ago
  How safely we can ship nuclear rocket to deep space. That kinda rocket exploding at launch and basically turning dirty bomb could cause some nasty damage to enviroment and would be pr disaster.
  - papito 5y ago
    The newer Mars rovers use nuclear power, although obviously, not the same type needed for propulsion.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    Do you really think nobody thinks of these issues?
  - arisAlexis 5y ago
    Imagine detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere on purpose. Oops, we did it already.
  - swiley 5y ago
    Meh, we've put plenty of various kinds of nuclear reactors in space.
    - m4rtink 5y ago
      Also if you don't activate the reactor until after launch the fuel is still effectively just heavy metal.
      - ianai 5y ago
        Or even build it out there. Ie launch mostly pre built components. A ship that never has to worry about first leaving earths gravity well can have vastly different characteristics than something we’d launch from here.
profmonocle 5y ago
Reminds me of watching New Horizons launch as a High School junior, then excitedly watching the images come in when I was in my mid-20's. Really drives home how unbelievably vast astronomical distances are, even just within our one solar system. One of the fastest objects humanity has ever built, and it took more than a third of my life to reach its destination.
wcoenen 5y ago
As far as I understand, the next generation of heavy lift vehicles (i.e. Starship, New Glenn, SLS) will not allow us to do better than a Hohmann transfer. And that would still mean waiting for the launch window to Jupiter (period 1.1 years) and a transfer of 3.7 years. So Clipper's cruise of 5.5 years really isn't so bad. Future space probes will likely continue to save delta-v by taking a slightly slower trajectory with gravity assists.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Interesting. Even with orbital refueling of starship?
  - WJW 5y ago
    Hohmann transfers (the most efficient path) take a fixed amount of delta-V, so how much fuel you have does not really matter. You could probably find a quicker path if you are willing to sacrifice some efficiency, but even then it is going to take several years to get there with current technology. Since probes don't really care about travel time, might as well take the most efficient path so that you have fuel left over for interesting maneuvers near the destination.
    - Valgrim 5y ago
      Or more interesting probes, such as deep-drilling equipment
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Starship could open up a lot of options. There’s no reason it couldn’t launch a small probe loaded to the gills with fuel and engines and make a shorter trip.
- baq 5y ago
  Just imagine getting a 90 ton kick stage for a 500kg probe like New Horizons.
  - deleted 5y ago

EdwardDiego 5y ago

And by not landing on the ice, we won't risk angering Star Child Dave Bowman.