Robo-explorer goes deep

Darnell Clayton, SC — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:25:23 GMT

Great technology, but I personally think its a waste for several reasons.

1) Europa is bathed in Jovian radiation so you are definitely not going to find anything within three feet of the surface.

2) I can not imagine enough sunlight penetrating the surface to give energy to anything beneath. (I could be wrong, but how would something survive in total darkness without sunlight, volcanic activity, etc.)

3) We still have no clue how thick the surface of Europa is, and we would be drilling/melting through something as thick as our own crust on Earth

4) Even if all of the above could be "reasoned against," we would have to launch a strong (and perhaps large) nuclear powered craft, which most nations would protest against (remember the Pluto probe?).

Although I still think this is a cool idea (and would support it on the basis of exploration alone) I don't see this getting off the the ground because of:

5) NASA is more focused on human exploration than robotic exploration (a good thing in my opinion as we have watched the stars for too long).

Despite being an optimist, (and wanting something like this to happen) I have my doubts. Perhaps those wiser than I could give me hope for this succeeding.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:00:11 GMT

Alan -- just shows to go you - private enterprise is too "busy" making money to ever become involved in projects like this (life giving and life saving at the same time) while NASA and its scientists work overtime and without pay to get the job done.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Edward Mora. Perris, California — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:15:33 GMT

Wouldn't this thing freeze or reach temperatures too cold to operate in and its engine stop if the area is too cold? Or, is it able to operate in any temperature, no matter how cold or how hot?

Robo-explorer goes deep

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:52:45 GMT

Darnell, I'll take a crack at the points you raised:

1. Actually, this probe will have to be designed to melt its way down through miles of ice. Astrobiologists speculate that the best places to look for life would be in the subsurface ocean, totally below the ice, or along the sides of the crevices that are periodically refreshed by upwelling water and slush ... probably miles down the side of the crack.

2. Scientists think that the energy for life is provided by tidal heating ... that is, the flexing of the Europan core as it orbits Jupiter. There is reason to suspect that such flexing can create tectonic movement and volcanic activity on the seafloor, similar to what you seen on Earth's seafloor. Refer to the "Tidal Heating" section on this Web page: http://www.resa.net/nasa/europa_life.htm

3. Yes, it's a challenge. Galileo data indicate that the ice layer is perhaps 10 kilometers deep or even deeper, and that the subsurface ocean could be 30 to 100 kilometers deep - potentially far deeper than the oceans on Earth.

4. Yes, it would take a nuclear-powered probe. Stone estimates something in the 100kw range. This is what was being discussed for the now-canceled JIMO mission to Jupiter's moons. NASA has gone back and forth on nuclear-powered probes ... that was what Project Prometheus (remember that?) was all about.

5. Yes, point well taken. The shift of money from space science to the exploration program is why Europa mission studies are running on empty.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Alan Boyle — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:58:46 GMT

Edward, Stone said that the Europa seabot, as currently conceived, could operate in conditions where the water/slush was twice as viscous as water on Earth ... but it would have to piggyback on a "melt probe" to get through the surface ice/slush to begin with. It sounds as if it wouldn't be designed to move well through ice, slush or slurry. If it's ice all the way down, that would be a bad thing.

Robo-explorer goes deep

D. Fitzpatrick, Arlington, Texas — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:37:55 GMT

I am glad to see some folks right here in Texas are involved in such a worthy endeavor!

Darnell, here is some hope on how this could succeed...

1) The goal would be to search for signs of life in a possible underwater ocean under a mile or more of ice. Water can make for a good radiation shield, so Jovian radiation would not preclude the possibility of life. The greatest problem with radiation might be trying to get a signal back up to the surface! (Might need a communications line to a surface relay unwound behind the base station as it sank?)

2) The discovery of various "extremophiles" over the last few years has shown us that life can exist under some remarkably hostile conditions, and neither sunlight nor volcanic activity are required, some life forms can derive energy simply from chemical reactions. For example, see -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6928753/

3) I'm not sure that Europa's ice sheet is quite as thick as the Earth's crust. But getting through ice is easier than solid rock - the base station just melts the ice, and the moon's own gravity does the rest.

4) A nuclear-based power source would of course need to be designed to survive a launch failure intact. But the fact remains that solar energy is reduced considerably when you get to the outer plants. If you plan on doing much beyond taking pretty pictures (like melting though several miles of ice), you are going to need a stronger power source.

5) Human space exploration has also been languishing somewhat lately - man hasn't been out of low earth orbit for decades, and NASA is going to be without any manned spaceflight capability for several years after the shuttle retires in 2010. Manned and robotic exploration shouldn't be an either/or proposition, however, they should compliment each other. (For example, before Neil Armstrong ever set foot on the moon, NASA sent the "Surveyor" series to gather the information needed to make the Apollo landing possible)

But imagine if a probe actually FOUND extraterrestrial life on Europa (or Mars, or Ganymede, or...) the incentive it could generate to send a manned mission out there to check it out in person!

Robo-explorer goes deep

Guy S. Newell — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:01:06 GMT

I'm surprised at everyone having missed the point of this article. The advances in computer science in the last several years means that we can finally start on delivering the implied promise of 50 years ago. Artifical Intelligence, since the real thing seems to be in short supply around here.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Joe, Mesquite TX — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:31:22 GMT

All they have to do is send the thing to Loch Ness, and they should be able to raise money pretty quickly. These scientists need to think like the great showman Tesla and get the public behind them.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Jack Wilmette, Washington DC — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:39:43 GMT

(This story reminds me somewhat of robots in the Matrix that searched the underground transits looking for Neo and Morpheus)

I think what is truly interesting about this robot is that we are entering an age where climate concerns, and tied to that, water concerns will be major issues for the planet. Finding out what opportunities exist for mankind at remote depths is a logical step, and automated systems that can intelligently navigate those environments makes complete sense.

As with all space endeavors, there are always those that try to place an immediate "ROI" on whatever is spent on a project. Exploring Europa seems very reasonable based in the ice evidence and sub surface water. As with any journey of discovery, there are risks and rewards. The only true risk here is in the technology matching the environment into which it is placed, and the rewards potential seems huge.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Patrick Tomlinson, Tampa, FL — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:00:28 GMT

2) I can not imagine enough sunlight penetrating the surface to give energy to anything beneath. (I could be wrong, but how would something survive in total darkness without sunlight, volcanic activity, etc.)

So what? Who told you sunlight was a prerequisite for finding life? We have numerous examples of communities of life right here on Earth that do not get their energy from sunlight. We discovered deep sea volcanic vent colonies as early as the 1970's

"4) Even if all of the above could be "reasoned against," we would have to launch a strong (and perhaps large) nuclear powered craft, which most nations would protest against (remember the Pluto probe?)."

The nulear power cells we design today pose very little risk to the environment, even in the event of a launch failure. They have very carefully crafted containment canisters which can remain intact even if the rocket the are aboard explodes at altitude and falls back to Earth. Ignorant, scared people protest against everything we do. Tell them to get bent. Problem solved.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Richard Greenberg, Tucson, Arizona — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:21:28 GMT

Dear Alan,

Thanks for the fine coverage of the DEPTHX project, for which I am a consultant. Also, please be aware of my book "Europa, the Ocean Moon: Search for an Alien Biosphere" (Springer-Praxis Books), which addresses many of the issues raised by your readers.

Richard Greenberg, Prof. of Planetary Sciences, Univ. of Arizona

Robo-explorer goes deep

Andrew Gladstone, Grand Rapids, Michigan — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:54:17 GMT

Robotic probes would be the only way to explore Europa in our lifetime. I would support a nuclear powered craft being sent to Europa because it would be a chance to discover life that evolved seperately from that on earth. Does anybody know if technology exists to withstand the pressure of 10 to 30 or more kilometers of ice and water? Would the pressure be less on Europa than being at the bottom of the ocean on Earth?

Robo-explorer goes deep

Russ — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:37:02 GMT

-"The nuclear power cells we design today pose very little risk".

Actually this issue could be resolved by simply sending small amounts (that would dissipate anyway in the event of an explosion) of nuclear fuel per launch of any satellite, then combining them later for the final mission. Just collect them for a while at a safe level in space, then go... space missions usually take years anyway, why not use that time productively with no real outcry from the people or risk at all?

Robo-explorer goes deep

Jeff Cassens — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:34:43 GMT

ALL THESE ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA -- ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.
--HAL, 2010

(sorry, couldn't resist ;->)

Robo-explorer goes deep

Tomas William, Miami Fl. — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:02:55 GMT

My opinion is: Understand all that is in front of our very eyes first, here on earth. Running away to other planets doesn't resolve our current world crisis. Save our Mother Earth! Conserve and live as one human race! Then united we can grow and reach for the stars.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Chuck Sweet, Portland oregon — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:10:46 GMT

The ability to build systems to withstand extreme pressures are actually already with us, we can build items that will withstand with ease the pressures found at the greatest depths of our oceans. The big challenge, as with Alvin, was to design one that would protect a human at these depths, which we were able to plainly do. If there is no need to protect a human then it becomes orders of magnitude easier to design and build such a craft as material strengths of metals and composites easily are up to the task of bearing equalized pressures upon them. It would seem to me that the major difficulties would be in designing the bouyancy chambers to compensate for the compression found at extreme depths. I know that with Alvin the bouyancy chambers were filled with a lighter than water material and weights added that could be dropped when one wanted to surface. I dont think that such a system would be appropriate when one is doing scientific observations of pristine ecosystems where one would want to not add materials that might change that ecosystem either by chemical changes due to the decay of those weights over time (rusting etc) or the unsightly 'trash' of the released objects. Another way to do the same would be using compressed gasses (Air or straight nitrogen) to displace the water in the bouyancy chambers, unless the depths are too great and the gasses would not be able to expand due to the pressures(Hmm, heated gasses, steam??), but on an extended survey (and certainly on Europa) there would be the difficulty of limited gas (or other material) supply. I for one believe that the "mothership" that would help deliver the Europa probes in the future would have to be a combination of self-contained repair/resupply (after a limited fasion) base as well as housing the actual 'melt through' systems and be a repeater for the communications link setup, probably (as D. Fitzpatrick points out) a fine coaxial line unwound behind it as it sank through the ice, leading to a surface repeater that would be able to send the information gained to further points, eventually to our own recievers here on Earth. Just a couple of technical points to ponder. I DO however applaud the building of such a marvelous craft, the fact that it IS autonomous and able to work independently without having to be 'micromanaged' by humans during it's missions is an astounding achievement that is sure to revolutionize the exploration of our deep seas and hard to get to places, such as the cenotes that it is currently exploring. The prospects for this craft and it's ilk are truly exciting! I want to Congratulate the team and the various folks that have helped to make this project an such an amazing success.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Darnell Clayton, SC — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:14:22 GMT

Thanks Alan, Patrick, D. Fitzpatrick and anyone else I missed.

I think I now have some hope for this project, at least on questions 1-4.

Now if we could only get some funding for this exploration...

Robo-explorer goes deep

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:56:23 GMT

While it is true that we have found microbial life buried deep within 'rock' on land, and fish with anti-freeze in their blood around both north and south poles, and various worms, shrimp and other shellfish living luxuriantly but lightlessly around deepsea vents, all those beings survive because they have evolved and adapted to the conditions in which they find themselves. But their progenitors were just worms and fish trying to make a home in inhospitable spaces within nature. Nature abhors a vacuum in more ways than one. Earth was not anything like it is now. Life was conceived in that darkness and turmoil originally, then born when everything was changed, and evolution made adaptability the prime function to shape life. Otherwise we would be overrun with new forms of life all the time, rather than many forms of life adapting from one primordial germ. Europa may or may not have the prerequisites of life, but it has not evolved into a life-sustaining environment, so we will not find science-fictional beings to greet us there under that foggy, foggy dew.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, Texas — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:31:08 GMT

I hope it works as planned, though I doubt they will find any kind of lifeforms. It would seem to me to have extreme implications if two forms of life could come into creation so close to each other.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:12:55 GMT

To Michael Hubbard: You're right. It would. If we find life on Mars and/or Europa or Callisto, it would tend to show that life isn't a rare thing in the Universe. Getting an answer to that is perhaps the *most* important reason to look for it. (Followed by how different the basic biology of such life may or may not be.)

To Darnell Clayton: The current thinking is that the tidal flexing that makes the entire moon Io highly volcanic, is operating in a less extreme manner on Europa, keeping much of its water as liquid, except near the surface. If so, we could have a situation down there like that around the so-called 'black smokers' in moderately active areas on the sea floors of Earth (a recent documentary by James Cameron, the name of which escapes me at the moment, illustrates the kind of light-free ecology that's possible, utilizing the chemicals from these volcanic vents).

Water is indeed an effective absorber of ionizing radiation (as anyone who's seen pictures of open-pool research reactors will note). Three feet of it (frozen or liquid) equals one foot of concrete. But I also acknowledge that useful light penetration will be problematic.

Also note that 'most nations' didn't object to New Horizons (or Cassini), much of that came from US citizens. Russia has not only launched, but had re-entry accidents with nuclear powered satellites already (notably Cosmos 954 in Canada, which was hardly the end of the world, just a matter of getting them to compensate Canada for the cleanup), so they'd be in the least position to object.

And the ice thickness is indeed an issue, which is why we need the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) or something like it that can analyze the surface with penetrating radar, to get a better sense of just how much we would indeed have to deal with.

Robo-explorer goes deep

RussJFK, Dallas, Texas — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:32:38 GMT

I think it sounds like a good idea to continue to explore as our forfathers did. This capsule looks just like the "bathyscath-triophe" from the 70's. It was made by Jaques Coustoue for deep underwater research in our oceans. We think we know so much about our planet and solar systems, any research helps.

Robo-explorer goes deep

Patrick Tomlinson — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:26:24 GMT

"Europa may or may not have the prerequisites of life, but it has not evolved into a life-sustaining environment, so we will not find science-fictional beings to greet us there under that foggy, foggy dew. "

Europa does indeed appear to have all the prerequisits for life as we know it. Liquid water, organic chemistry, and an abundant source of energy. What else do you suppose is required for life to develop?

As for it not having "evolved into a life-sustaining environment", what precisely do you call a planet-sized ocean of liquid water and organic compounds?

And finally, we aren't going to find life on the "foggy, foggy dew" of the Europan surface because there is no atmosphere and it is baked in radiation from Jupiter. Then again, no one here is talking about finding life on the surface. We're talking about the giant ocean under the surface. You know, the one that has twice the volume of all the water on Earth. The water where most of the life on Earth lives.

This isn't rocket science, people.