6 ms·
ESA’s Juice lifts off on quest to discover secrets of Jupiter’s icy moons
- dmix 3y agoHas there ever been a major unmanned project like this that blew up on takeoff/failed in orbit in recent years? I was listening to the huge list of gear they put on this thing by a project lead and the years of hard work by scientists and it would have been heartbreaking if it failed catastrophically. https://youtu.be/Ljh2BKdjpmE https://youtu.be/Ljh2BKdjpmE
- nordsieck 3y agoNot sure if you count Zuma. Didn't really "blow up", but it did fail to separate from the 2nd stage.
- ChuckMcM 3y agoA good summary of NASA's robotic mission failures: https://astronomy.com/news/2020/12/nasas-failures-robotic-space-missions-that-didnt-go-as-planned https://astronomy.com/news/2020/12/nasas-failures-robotic-sp... mostly early ones as NASA developed a better process and understanding for getting things right the first time.
- pkaye 3y agoYouTube JPL channel has a whole series of videos on all the major robotic missions and their engineering challenges. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTiv_XWHnOZqFnWQs393RhIMQoeCnwjhV https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTiv_XWHnOZqFnWQs393R...
- aeroman 3y agoThere were a few Earth Observation missions that didn't make orbit about 10-15 years ago. This was due to a failure of the Taurus-XL fairing separation. The orbiting carbon observatory (OCO) failed to reach orbit in 2009 [1]. It got a replacement (a good thing, given how important these measurements are. Glory [2] would have had a really cool polarimiter (measuring light polariasation as well as radiance, in a range of different directions, but it failed in 2011 for the same reason as OCO. Unfortunately, it didn't get a replacement. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)
- progbits 3y agoDuring the JWST streams I recall hearing this is why they went with the Ariane 5 as it is the most reliable launch platform. It might not be fancy, reusable or even fastest or most powerful, but it will reliably lift the payload, not explode, and deliver it to orbit at just the right speed. Same rocket was used for Juice.
- z3t4 3y agoFor some missions I think there's an exact copy left on earth for easier debugging/testing
- krylon 3y agoIIRC, the USSR had really bad luck with the various probes they sent to Mars. A couple crashed, and I think one or two got off course and were lost.
- dmix 3y agoIdk about Mars but that was definitely the experience on Venus (which was far more understandable since they were sending metal balls that would be crushed under pressure within minutes). Only survived about 2-3/10.
- midasuni 3y agoFeels like Mars eats most probes. Mars96 and Mars polar observer come to kind immediately. I believe my name was on a cd on one of them as an early internet thing you could do. Never made it to mars.
- dmix 3y agoAt least your name is floating on a disc in space that's still pretty cool.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- krylon 3y agoBut I wouldn't count the Venus probes as failures. Initially, they had no idea what the conditions would be like, so they built more and more robust probes until they did manage to land on the surface without dying immediately.
- ChuckMcM 3y agoI'm looking forward to the results from this one. In particular the idea that is discussed in the article about Ganymede's magnetic field. Jupiter's orbit has a mess of radioactivity and it would be really helpful if Ganymede's magnetic field made it possible to exist on the surface without massive amounts of shielding.
- drewg123 3y agoWow, 11 years to Jupiter. I wish we had better propulsion systems. EDIT: This wasn't meant to disrespect the ESA mission. I'm just sad that the outer planets are years away, rather than the hours, days, weeks or months of science fiction.
- swarnie 3y agoNasa are supposedly working on it but that hasn't meant much since the 60s. Maybe inequality will breed a billionaire with a hard-on for nuclear propulsion?
- 867-5309 3y agoit's a shame nuclear detonations in space are banned (for obvious reasons)
- floxy 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
- 867-5309 3y ago"NTRs have been proposed as a spacecraft propulsion technology .. as of 2023, no nuclear thermal rocket has flown"
- sfifs 3y agoWhat is actually the obvious reason to ban nuclear detonation in space (Not planetside) other than proliferation & security concerns?
- ceejayoz 3y agoGeopolitically destabilizing. Nuclear weapons in space can become nuclear weapons not in space very quickly, which makes for itchy trigger fingers. ICBMs can be detected at launch, so you have 15 minutes to react. Not much, but better than orbital nukes hanging over your head.
- t3estabc 3y ago[dead]
- macintux 3y agoPrevious discussions over the last two days: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568388 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35551870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35551870
- dang 3y agoThanks! Macroexpanded: Juice launch to Jupiter – Live [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568388 - April 2023 (29 comments) ESA – Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer: Live Launch - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35551870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35551870 - April 2023 (70 comments)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rufus_foreman 3y agoI guess plume flybys technically don't count as attempting a landing?
- jmyeet 3y agoI'm glad to see this flagship interplanetary probes launch. For those wondering why it's taking 8 years, it's huge (~6 tons IIRC). I still hope to see probes enter orbit around Uranus and Neptune in my lifetime. Neptune in particular would be a massive challenge with an expected flight time of ~30 years IIRC so I don't see that happening anytime soon. The last (and only!) time we've been to Uranus and Neptune is with Voyager 2 in flybys in 1986 and 1989 (respectively). Imagine what we can do with current technology. I guess a flyby is the most we can hope for. Still, I can dream.
- zabzonk 3y agolaunch technology (rockets) have not changed much, though certainly sensors have improved a lot. i would love to have more information about the outer planets. but here is my solution to the fermi paradox - it is too bloody hard!
- kumarvvr 3y agoWith the likes of SpaceX being around, is it not possible to have a store of fuel in orbit, so that these missions can pick a tank or two of them, slingshot their way and use the fuel to speed up the journey? Or, is it purely economics at play?
- ranger207 3y agoIt's been possible since the first orbital dockings in the 60s, but nobody's really found the levels of effort and costs to be practical.
- exitb 3y agoStarship will be able to refuel in orbit. It’s actually a requirement for HLS to work, so I guess they’re pretty serious about that capability.
- cryphosnegative 3y ago[flagged]
- ggm 3y agoWould more energy be available for capture from Jupiter's reflectance or direct from the sun? My heart wants to say yes but my head thinks even as a point source, direct solar energy is higher. If it was other RF or heat, maybe not. I wonder if a Stirling engine could work alternating shade and Jupiter's direct radiation? I also wondered if lowering a long tail could acquire electrostatic energy greater than its coefficient of drag. As above, cute but .. no. The proof by example answer is "if it had been viable they'd have done it"
- tmtvl 3y agoThe problem with that is there's no atmosphere in space. A vacuum is not very good at dissipating heat.
- eric-hu 3y agoProbably direct from the sun. There's an what-if about using moonlight to start a fire https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ > First, here's a general rule of thumb: You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun. ... > The Sun is about 5,000°C, so our rule says you can't focus sunlight with lenses and mirrors to get something any hotter than 5,000°C. The Moon's sunlit surface is a little over 100°C, so you can't focus moonlight to make something hotter than about 100°C. The cloud tops of Jupiter are estimated to be -280 degrees F.
- ggm 3y agoYes, my basis for wondering was reflectance to surface area providing more PV energy than capture by the same PV surface from a higher energy point source. About all I've got is less directional, so at lower intensity more available for less tracking effort.
- karaterobot 3y agoI hope it's still around 15,000 years from now, watching increasingly absurd variations of football games.
- euroderf 3y agoThis was the first video of the actual liftoff that I have seen. I looked for something a few hours after liftoff but came up with nada. I can compare this to US missions: there is always something quickly on Youtube, clearly marked. ESA get your social media presence in gear !