NASA Pulls the Plug on Jupiter-Moon Lander, So Scientists Propose Landing It on Saturn (gizmodo.com) 45
"NASA engineers have spent the past decade developing a rugged, partially autonomous lander designed to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's most intriguing moons," reports Gizmodo.
But though NASA "got cold feet over the project," the engineers behind the project are now suggesting the probe could instead explore Enceladus, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn: Europa has long been a prime target in the search for extraterrestrial biology because scientists suspect it harbors a subsurface ocean beneath its icy crust, potentially teeming with microbial life. But the robot — packed with radiation shielding, cutting-edge software, and ice-drilling appendages — won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
In a recent paper in Science Robotics, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) outlined the design and testing of what was once the Europa Lander prototype, a four-legged robotic explorer built to survive the brutal surface conditions of the Jovian moon. The robot was designed to walk — as opposed to roll — analyze terrain, collect samples, and drill into Europa's icy crust — all with minimal guidance from Earth, due to the major communication lag between our planet and the moon 568 million miles (914 million kilometers) away. Designed to operate autonomously for hours at a time, the bot came equipped with stereoscopic cameras, a robotic arm, LED lights, and a suite of specialized materials tough enough to endure harsh radiation and bone-chilling cold....
According to the team, the challenges of getting to Europa — its radiation exposure, immense distance, and short observation windows — proved too daunting for NASA's higher-ups. And that's before you take into consideration the devastating budget cuts planned by the Trump administration, which would see the agency's funding fall from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. The lander, once the centerpiece of a bold astrobiology initiative, is now essentially mothballed.
But the engineers aren't giving up. They're now lobbying for the robot to get a second shot — on Enceladus, Saturn's ice-covered moon, which also boasts a subsurface ocean and has proven more favorable for robotic exploration. Enceladus is still frigid, but `has lower radiation and better access windows than Europa.
But though NASA "got cold feet over the project," the engineers behind the project are now suggesting the probe could instead explore Enceladus, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn: Europa has long been a prime target in the search for extraterrestrial biology because scientists suspect it harbors a subsurface ocean beneath its icy crust, potentially teeming with microbial life. But the robot — packed with radiation shielding, cutting-edge software, and ice-drilling appendages — won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
In a recent paper in Science Robotics, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) outlined the design and testing of what was once the Europa Lander prototype, a four-legged robotic explorer built to survive the brutal surface conditions of the Jovian moon. The robot was designed to walk — as opposed to roll — analyze terrain, collect samples, and drill into Europa's icy crust — all with minimal guidance from Earth, due to the major communication lag between our planet and the moon 568 million miles (914 million kilometers) away. Designed to operate autonomously for hours at a time, the bot came equipped with stereoscopic cameras, a robotic arm, LED lights, and a suite of specialized materials tough enough to endure harsh radiation and bone-chilling cold....
According to the team, the challenges of getting to Europa — its radiation exposure, immense distance, and short observation windows — proved too daunting for NASA's higher-ups. And that's before you take into consideration the devastating budget cuts planned by the Trump administration, which would see the agency's funding fall from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. The lander, once the centerpiece of a bold astrobiology initiative, is now essentially mothballed.
But the engineers aren't giving up. They're now lobbying for the robot to get a second shot — on Enceladus, Saturn's ice-covered moon, which also boasts a subsurface ocean and has proven more favorable for robotic exploration. Enceladus is still frigid, but `has lower radiation and better access windows than Europa.
NASA got cold feet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did NASA decide not to do it, or did Trump cut funding and Elon Musk axe fire employees to the point where NASA had to triage?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Also. (Score:5, Funny)
You are all wrong! Young people working on the project weren't aware of the warning about landing on Europa we had received. When made aware, they simply took it into consideration and decided it would be safer to land on a Saturn Moon instead. Plain and simple!
Link:
https://www.goodreads.com/quot... [goodreads.com]
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.
USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ding ding ding. The so called “liberal media” sure does its best to avoid making dear leader look bad. I remember that time members of Biden’s cabinet threw hands over a disagreement. Oh wait that never happened.
Re:NASA got cold feet? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a comment recently that we called him "Sleepy Joe" because we could sleep at night.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, NASA decided that it was too difficult a mission for the time being. Budget cuts were just another convenient excuse.
When you think about the fact that NASA can't even get it's shit together enough to get the "close to home" Artemis moon mission, that was supposed have landed in 2024, going it really shouldn't be a surprise that they mothballed Europa.
Frankly I don't think that an Enceladus mission has a snowball's chance in hell either. It will cost just as much as Europa, be almost just as difficult,
Re:NASA got cold feet? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what, after the DOGE fiasco, no more just getting to say an agency "is a mess" using something such really as benign as a delayed mission to land on the moon. You need to justify that statement and then disconnect it from things out of their control like in fact funding and directives which come both from Congress (cough, cough, Richard Shelby [arstechnica.com]) as well as the Executive who happens to change every so often.
NASA currently and always has and is updating an entire suite of earth observing systems, has a current operating probe around Jupiter, just in 2021 we all watched when they landed a probe on an asteroid, picked up some stuff and brought it back to Earth. SpaceX fans always throw around the phrase "space is hard" and they're right, it is and NASA deals with all that and still does things SpaceX couldn't and more to the point, wouldn't, like returning samples from an asteroid for the pure knowledge. Because we can.
This mission sounds really cool and it's a shame for it to get cut, it should get increased imo, I think confirming whether life is on Europa or the other moons should be a big priority to explore for NASA because really we're pretty sure it's nowhere else in our system and the rest are a long ways away.
So I don't think NASA is a shadow of it's former self, I think it does the best it can with the directives we give them, the leadership we people provide them, the funding that stems from that and the talent they can attract, their lives aren't exactly always made simple on all those fronts. When we say NASA's "former self" we mean a time when we spent a lot more money on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The frustrating part is the lack of cooperation, and the lack of proper long term funding for specific goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I would much prefer Congress set the big, overarching mission goals for NASA but stay out of the particulars. We can complain about the Artemis delays but that program has been a political football going all the way back to W Bush when it was called Constellation
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most democracies can do stuff like that, except in exceptional circumstances. Apollo was exceptional and not easy to reproduce. The basic issue is that nothing is guaranteed past the next election. More advanced democracies with proper representation and coalition governments are better in that regard, they don't get such huge shifts in policy, but they also tend to be less motivated to spend a lot on space.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree Apollo was exceptional circumstances, both to the urgency and monetary value but I don't think it's out of the realm today, this isn't a tear it all down type thing but it just needs some changes and updates as NASA's overall options for collaborators in the private market are far more numerous today than any point in history. I'd like to see these type of projects funded more long term and not so at the whims of yearly budgets, like funding stability is more important than funding amounts.
A proposal for a mission, not a funded mission (Score:5, Informative)
This would be Flagship-class, which means it needs Congressional approval.
Hug a probe! (Score:3)
Manned missions have always been a budgeting headache because they take a lot of money, a lot of time, and a consistent Congress, the last one rarer than the Holy Grail. US unmanned probes are more often on budget and have been quite successful overall.
("Manned" sounds misogynistic, but "humanned" and "peopled" sound awkward.)
Re: (Score:3)
You might consider "crewed", "piloted", or "staffed" as alternatives. You can also say "human space flight" as an alternative to "manned missions".
Re: (Score:1)
"Crewed" sounds like "crude" when spoken, and "staffed" sounds awkward for reasons I don't wish to go into. "Piloted"? Gotta ponder that one...
Re: (Score:2)
When you think about the fact that NASA can't even get it's shit together enough to get the "close to home" Artemis moon mission, that was supposed have landed in 2024, going it really shouldn't be a surprise that they mothballed Europa.
I'm very unhappy with this. Keep in mind that this was supposed to happen under Biden, so I figured the delay was the usual NASA nonsense about trying to get the risk down to zero and so on. Trump was supposed to be the space guy, the. guy who cared about space stuff and was going to get us back to the moon. Now he's just become another "Yeah, that costs money. We can't do that." guy like most in the Republican Party, with the exception of his huge "beautiful" spending bill that costs a fortune but
Re:NASA got cold feet? (Score:5, Informative)
So, that's the impression the headline and summary gives, but if you RTFA, it does state that the current meshugas is not responsible for this. But it's not at all clear from the article that the cancellation predates this by quite a bit; several years. Studies of it began in tandem with development of Europa Clipper, but ultimately there wasn't enough funding for both, and that we weren't ready for it at this point.
It's not like there's hardware already built and ready to send up, either. Yes, there were studies, but the lander never even got to Phase A (Concept and Technology Development), which would have required a new start from Congress.
It's also not at all clear to me that you'd even want to send the same hardware to Enceladus that you'd designed for Europa. They both would land on ocean worlds, but apart from that, this would appear to be an entirely new mission concept.
Differences [Re:NASA got cold feet?] (Score:3)
It's also not at all clear to me that you'd even want to send the same hardware to Enceladus that you'd designed for Europa. They both would land on ocean worlds, but apart from that, this would appear to be an entirely new mission concept.
A lander for Europa will need a lot of radiation protection. Enceladus would be easier because you don't need the highly radiation tolerant electronics and all the associated testing.
Other than that, the spacecraft would be mostly the same. Enceladus would be easier to land on, with a lot less delta V needed; but the trip there will take longer.
Re: (Score:1)
https://images2.imgbox.com/a5/bc/Kq5HzNmJ_o.jpg
Re: (Score:1)
Got it: you're a dumb, uneducated incompetant (DUI), and can't merit-wise compete with someone with more melanin, or is female, or really *anyone*.
Re: (Score:2)
Did NASA decide not to do it, or did Trump cut funding and Elon Musk axe fire employees to the point where NASA had to triage?
In this case, it's not either-or but actually both of those.
"landing on Saturn" ?! (Score:3)
Technically possible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cassini ended its mission in Saturn. If you've never watched the Grand Finale video, it's worth it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Obligatory 2010: (Score:5, Funny)
NASA must have just got the memo.
Google Gemini is definitely Onboard (Score:3)
I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Definitely much more dramitc flair than the lengthy explanation I was expecting about how it does not have any pod bay doors to open!
Christians afraid of finding life? (Score:1, Troll)
Are the Christian Nationalists afraid of finding extraterrestrial life?
Is there high res imagery of Enceladus? (Score:2)
The Europa Clipper will have taken high resolution images of Europa before the lander arrives, which would help choose a suitable landing spot. It also takes a lot longer to get to Saturn / Enceladus which would extend the mission timeline and costs. Enceladus is a lot smaller so less delta-V and a smaller spacecraft, and maybe that is really what is pushing for this change?
Enceladus is interesting, but it seems its smaller size and lower energy environment (less tidal energy, less solar energy, less ra
Re: (Score:2)
"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?".
Glad they chose a moon of Saturn for this (Score:1)
and not a moon of the next gas giant.
Next fallback site (Score:5, Funny)
Alaska in the winter. :-)
(Northern Canada was ruled out because - tariffs ...)
All these worlds are yours (Score:2)
All these worlds are yours--except Europa.
Attempt no landings there.
and in other related news (Score:2)
Since Musk no longer has a seat in the White House, the planned manned mission to Mars will instead be going to Zelienople.
Probes are Cooler and Less Expensive (Score:2)
Probes should be widely funded... not only can probes be more on-budget, they are much less expensive. For example the Mars Pathfinder mission for development and launch was under $300M, while a shuttle launch in that time period was at least $1.5B. So you get many times the scientific discovery for a fifth the cost. Once you remove crew concerns, the possibilities go way up and the costs (particularly with human safety and requirement to return to Earth) go way down.
Oh cmon. (Score:2)
Re: Oh cmon. (Score:2)