The Europa Clipper mission may be as exciting as a manned mars mission and it’s only two years away

Submitted by Wide-Escape-5618 t3_y74mpy in space

Can you imagine if 100 mile deep liquid oceans are confirmed on Europa? Even without the confirmation of life it would be completely mind boggling for me. The deepest point in Earths ocean is 7 miles!

Europa Clipper is also capable of detecting collections of liquid water closer to the surface of Europa. If a collection of water is detected close to the surface it would probably be the target of future rover/drilling missions.

And although Europa Clipper will probably not directly prove the existence of life, it will tell us if the necessary components are there for it to develop. Crazy stuff.

Feel free to correct me on anything I have said as I am no expert on the mission.

405

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Dungeonmancer t1_issip5r wrote

I'm not an expert either, but am really excited for the Clipper mission. I've been hearing about it for years and can't wait to see the results of the first data.

If the theories about Europas oceans are correct it's a very exciting time. Europa will teach us a lot about extraterrestrial life, even if it's barren.

62

Haalofti t1_isvxvt6 wrote

I can't wait to see the Clipper Mission.

The one thing about us is that it might offerba glimpse into someone like you or I, it might strike a nerve for. We could live to be just old enough we see microbial life somewhere, but we'll die right as it's beginning.

I smoked too much weed.bi'm being a bummer, haha.

3

dioxol-5-yl t1_iswy1na wrote

How will it teach us a lot about extraterrestrial life if it's barren?

1

push__ t1_it330pw wrote

We learn that extraterrestrial life can not exist on bodies like Europa, and why not.

1

dioxol-5-yl t1_it3gml7 wrote

You can't generalise from one icy moon, the only sample you have anything more broadly. All you can say is that specific moon formed in that specific manner with these kinds of heavier elements that wasn't quite right in terms of the environment. Maybe that's the odd one out, maybe all other icy moons are teaming with life but you'd just assume based on a single moon orbiting a single planet in a single solar system that nup, none of them do.

If you did find life it would be strong evidence that it doesn't matter where you are so long as you have roughly the right stuff lying around life will spontaneously develop. Does any credible scientist truly believe its likely? No. Not based on life on earth which all stemmed back from a single common ancestor suggesting that even on earth, a place that was once teaming with life everywhere. If we only had one instance of life that survives on this awesome planet that was once able to sustain amazing amounts of life, then it's extremely unlikely you'd find conditions to sustain life. But we don't know for sure so I guess we have to find out and sell it like it's plausible or the public would never buy it. Don't let the fact that under the most ideal conditions, here on earth, there was only one instance of successful life, only one time in the planets history did functional life develop dull the dream that it could actually just be everywhere, but that's all it is, a dream.

Finding it would be amazing, cos the chances are so slim, but if we don't find it we learn nothing except that life doesn't spontaneously appear everywhere which seems kinda likely given we have this perfect planet but only once did functional life develop.

1

the6thReplicant t1_ist27tz wrote

Dragonfly is the one I’m most excited about.

Seeing liquid bodies on another world would be amazing.

48

alvinofdiaspar t1_isu8x1s wrote

There is a fair chance Dragonfly won’t see liquid - the mission is targeted to near equatorial areas, not the poles where the mares (seas) are.

12

StrangeTangerine1525 t1_isuknk2 wrote

There are equatorial oases fed by underground aquifers though, but I don’t think Dragonfly is landing near one of those either, I wonder if it kinda fly far enough to reach one.

8

alvinofdiaspar t1_isuq9yx wrote

There are suggestions of sporadic rainfall and fluvial activity in the equatorial band so it isn’t impossible to see liquid - but it may present challenges.

7

jeremy-o t1_issi2wj wrote

In terms of discovery, missions to Europa could definitely be amongst the biggest in our solar system. But as a symbol of accomplishment, getting a human onto Mars and back would be far greater.

35

Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_isslv5n wrote

Especially the and back part. Or a significant survival period if it’s assumed to be a one way trip.

15

JackHughesNJD t1_istm06v wrote

I don't think society would accept a one way mission tbh

11

Upstairs-Recover-659 t1_istmslq wrote

I'd go if I had the chance

5

JackHughesNJD t1_isu1y5b wrote

That's not really the question

5

BackwoodsRoller t1_isu56y1 wrote

I don't think he was answering a question, just making a comment.

4

Musicfan637 t1_isvl1iu wrote

But you can’t ignore the loads of people that would do the one way option.

1

nobrow t1_isvy37q wrote

A lot of them are romantisizing it and would for sure lose their shit after 6 months.

5

Musicfan637 t1_isw34k4 wrote

Either way, I hope I’m alive when and or if they ever find large swimming things in any of the frozen oceans out there.

2

Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_isuoxln wrote

Probably not, I’m just stating what I think a huge moment would be. Setting up a small permanent/semi-permanent settlement would be huge.

2

KaptainKoala t1_ist9i5q wrote

2 years away??? I won't get to Europa until 2030 at the earliest.

23

banana_buddy t1_istmusr wrote

You're going to Europa? Thanks for your sacrifice to humanity, no way you come back alive 😂

22

alvinofdiaspar t1_isu24fw wrote

Launch is only 2 years away.

5

KaptainKoala t1_isu6stn wrote

right but the actual science is 5 to 6 years after that

7

alvinofdiaspar t1_isu7gpe wrote

No real way around it - getting to Jupiter takes time (especially for a heavy orbiter that can’t just zip by like the Pioneers, Voyagers or New Horizons - in which case it takes about a year). The SLS can do it in 2 and change, but it isn’t available (or even tested), a good fit with the spacecraft and would cost a neat billion more than FH.

5

truthinlies t1_issp6kx wrote

Any of y'all played Barotrauma? Explore the oceans of Europa, fight off essentially xenomorphs, and keep it all together with friends!

At any rate I'm very excited to find out whatever we can about Europa!

22

Hussar_Regimeny t1_ist1thw wrote

It’s a shame it’s going to take so long to get there. I can’t wait for another 6 years for it to get there

12

Dungeonmancer t1_isth4we wrote

I remember when James Webb was 10 years away. I also remember waiting several years for Curiosity, and also Cassini.

This is just the pace of the space travel. I look at it as a bonus, you get to celebrate twice. Once at launch and again at destination.

25

alvinofdiaspar t1_isu2dgr wrote

The MEGA trajectory is relatively fast - not as fast as direct but not bad at all (compared to say Galileo, Cassini or even ESA’s JUICE).

9

grchelp2018 t1_isu7sno wrote

Its a technology limitation. We can and should make transit times faster. The universe is so large that even speed of light is slow. We'll never be able to do anything outside our immediate neighbours with such slow speeds.

5

Dungeonmancer t1_isua68x wrote

Absolutely. Technology is our limitation right now, but theoretically if technology keeps advancing eventually the speed of light will be our limitation.

Even the ludicrously fast speed of light is prohibitively slow to explore much of the universe. Perhaps we will find a way around it, but science hasn't come close to the science fiction yet in that regard.

It could be warp drives etc or some kind of effectively FTL travel are possible, but if not the speed of light might just be an impassable barrier preventing long distance exploration, which would be tragic.

7

themainemane t1_isw3rut wrote

I've always thought it as human lifetimes are the limitation, maybe it's not light that's slow in the universe but it's that were just too short in time to do or experience anything on large scales, but as you said maybe one day the speed of light won't be a barrier anymore 👀

3

Pm_me_some_green_tea t1_it0o9kg wrote

I'd say light is definitely the limitation. If we could move at light speed we would still never reach 96% of the known universe because of it's rate of expansion, no matter how long are lives were.

1

Significant-Eye4711 t1_isszpuu wrote

I think if we explore these moons with potentially liquid sub surface oceans and find that there is no life but there is an environment capable of sustaining life. We should consider seeding these places. Imagine they could be locations that we can fill with life there isn’t any other place in our solar system that could potentially support such large ecosystems. Mars never will but we could create giant resources of terrestrial organisms.

11

StrangeTangerine1525 t1_isukzdw wrote

Why wouldn’t Mars have the capability through terraforming? Even if it is a pipe dream with current tech in the future it definitely could be possible given large amounts of time.

3

Significant-Eye4711 t1_isusie1 wrote

Well mars once had an atmosphere and liquid water on its surface, if we answer why it doesn’t now we might understand why it’s less suitable than one of the ice moons. Mars is smaller and less dense than earth, it also doesn’t have a magnetosphere. This means that it doesn’t have a protective shield against solar wind which blows away any atmosphere. Also because Mars’s gravity is low it doesn’t hold on to an atmosphere as well as the earth. We could terraform mars but it would still be bombarded by solar winds.

1

StrangeTangerine1525 t1_iswhjp7 wrote

That’s wrong though. Being “blown away by solar winds” doesn’t mean much when it’s only 100 grams per second. At the current rate it would take the age of the solar system just to remove 1 current Martian atmosphere. A magnetosphere isn’t requirement for an atmosphere, mass is however, and that limits the amount of time air does remain on Mars, to hundreds of millions of years down from billions. Air loss is trivial when it comes to terraforming. Earth loses air all the time too, and currently at a rate twice as fast as Mars (0.7 kg/s compared to 1.4, note that modern Mars loses most of its air from interactions with ultraviolet rays) though it doesn’t matter because Earth has life and active outgassing.

3

Significant-Eye4711 t1_iswnw5g wrote

The problem is mars has already lost a lot of its atmosphere, it’s a big job to replace it and we already know it’s a leaky boat. Plus even if it did have an atmosphere everything would be irradiated. We can certainly move about on it’s surface but it’s never going to be like earth.

0

StrangeTangerine1525 t1_it0gh79 wrote

It was a leaky boat three billion years ago when the Sun had a much higher ionizing radiation output and solar flare rate, also why would it’s surface be irradiated if it has a 1 bar atmosphere? With current evidence Mars in theory should have more than a bar of CO2 locked up in its crust, and if we want to make the air breathable we can just import it from some place else.

1

hucktard t1_isu03ix wrote

I don't know a whole lot about this mission but I am actually an engineer working on a component that will fly aboard Europa. Super exciting to see what it will find.

10

kldload t1_issotd1 wrote

Any water that exists would be miles under the surface. A crewed Mara mission would be infinitely more exciting. I’m still excited for clipper, but would trade it for mars mission in a nanosecond

9

grchelp2018 t1_isu82n8 wrote

What if it was a choice between finding life on europa vs manned mars mission.

2

kldload t1_isv043b wrote

Well obviously finding life anywhere eclipses anything else... but we are more likely to find life on mars via human exploration. Any life on Europa will likely not be detectable without considerable equipmnt on the surface through (most probably) a starship visit. This would require on-route refilling most likely as well. Perhaps a belta-louda depot.

3

grchelp2018 t1_isu8rsd wrote

I don't know if the europa clipper mission is as exciting as a manned mars mission but I do think that europa should be given as much importance as mars. IMO if there is life to be found, it will be in one of these ocean worlds. Rather than looking at far away exoplanets for signs of life and habitability, we should make europa a priority.

7

Moerdac t1_isthizf wrote

I have got to stop looking at reddit while I'm playing destiny.

6

Pauper_Jenkins t1_istc7a2 wrote

I am expecting to see a Glacier Whale, over 200 ft long. If not, it was a waste if tax payers money.

4

Looter629 t1_isu4kty wrote

I want them to lower the camera down into the water and the last thing we see is a giant set of jaws.

6

BlueSkyFunGuy t1_isw26a8 wrote

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this weird fantasy, It'd suck to lose such an expensive mission but it'd be a hilarious way to shatter our perspective on life in the universe.

3

PanPepin_ t1_iswj9sn wrote

I don't know you, but if Europa turns out to be Subnautica in real life, that will not shatter my perspective but just prove that we should stay in Earth lol xD

Looking at the sea already gives me intense anxiety, I almost couldn't even play subnautica and deep sea frightens me. For all that is given, I really hope there's nothing there lol xD

2

Working_Sundae t1_issqanh wrote

How about Titan, its atmosphere is 50% higher than earth and thus you don't need high pressure suits and it's temperature is -180°C (-300F) even though it's too low, some advanced suits based on aerogel can keep you warm

And has Methane and ethane a huge energy source.

3

blueshirt21 t1_isstye4 wrote

Fun fact if a human were to wear wings like a bird you could fly by flapping them. Gravity is low enough and atmosphere is thick enough.

12

FindTheRemnant t1_isu0htr wrote

The methane needs oxygen for combustion though. It's funny how it would be like the opposite of the Earth. The fuel is floating around in the atmosphere, and you need to dig up the oxidizer.

5

StrangeTangerine1525 t1_isuliav wrote

Look up NASA’s dragonfly, it’s a cool mission. On another note however out here the primary concern is purely astrobiological, Titan as a location for colonization is laughable, even Mars is still far out with present day tech. And in terms of astrobiology Europa seems a better candidate for hosting life, a warm subsurface ocean is better than methane seas or a cold organic soup solution that probably is Titans subsurface ocean.

4

isabellerick t1_isyfrf5 wrote

Hi! I work on the Europa Clipper mission. I love to see folks excited about it. Makes my day-to-day meaningful to be reminded of the bigger picture. Thanks for this!

3

MicDeDuiwel t1_istil0s wrote

What would be the pressures at the bottom of 100km ocean be on europa?

2

the_fungible_man t1_isw4re3 wrote

Europa's possible ocean is estimated to be 100-200km deep. Despite the great depth of the Europa's ocean, hydrostatic pressure at the seafloor would be 130-260 MPa, corresponding to 13-26 km depth of a theoretical Earth's ocean.

3

MicDeDuiwel t1_iswjmk3 wrote

Ah! Thank you! So it is still quite crushed but life could still live on sea floor.

1

Goregue t1_isu9jcs wrote

The ocean on Europa is basically confirmed already.

2

SpartanJack17 t1_isvitib wrote

Like other comments have pointed out, a big reason there's not so much hype right now is that it won't actually reach Europa until the 2030s. It'll be huge when it does though.

2

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_issmu3p wrote

That deep means possibility of warm water. Can you imagine an ocean of new lifeforms? Damn mission better have a periscope function or something.

1

[deleted] t1_isso0wq wrote

[deleted]

−2

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_isso7ly wrote

Yah, it does. Closer to the core means closer to warmth.

−1

RundownPear t1_isspxml wrote

No, it really doesn't. Earth's deep oceans are actually significantly colder the deeper you go.

6

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_issqix5 wrote

Yes, but closer to geothermal activity that does not exist on the surface.

0

[deleted] t1_isssu10 wrote

[deleted]

1

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_issuzh7 wrote

Vents, amigo. Vents. Not proximity, but vents. That liquid has to be warmed by something.

1

RundownPear t1_issyhfp wrote

But those vents still do not lead to a warmer ocean overall, just warm areas. Earths deep ocean isn’t considered warm because it has vent scattered across the base.

1

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_ist0bb1 wrote

You just keep moving those goalposts, dontcha'? So anyway....warm water!

1

RundownPear t1_ist6478 wrote

Being "closer to the core" doesn't mean a warmer ocean. Deeper oceans are colder. Europa's ocean, assuming it does exist since it's still just a theory based on the moons low electrical conductivity and observed ice crust, would theoretically be warmed by tidal flexing caused by its orbit around Jupiter.

1

AsIfIKnowWhatImDoin t1_ist86qw wrote

I never said 'warm ocean'--that's something you made up and are running with.

I said 'warm water' and that is very much a possibility given the depth.

1

RundownPear t1_istawim wrote

Ok, still applies to warm water. Warm water being present has nothing to do with distance from the core of a planet or moon.

1

JUYED-AWK-YACC t1_isthufp wrote

I thought that it was due to tidal forces from Jupiter, flexing the shape of the ice shell. You can’t generate heat by mixing liquid water with ice.

1

No-Policy5641 t1_isw42ga wrote

I’m guessing it would be ethically wrong and I know nasa employees people to make sure we don’t accidentally contaminate other planets etc. I’m sure it’s been suggested what if we “seeded” one of these planets, moons etc with an animal/life form that could be sustainable in the given environment? I’m not saying it’s possible but it’s an interesting/scary idea.

1

NihilistPunk69 t1_isw7w03 wrote

So water? Are we talking fresh drinkable water? Or a composition of water that may be toxic to us?

1

MacJeff2018 t1_it03pk9 wrote

I recently rewatched "Europa Report" - pretty good sci fi film.

1

donzzler t1_issoq1m wrote

I don’t think NASA would ever drill into the oceans of Europa or Enceladus due to the risk of contamination. I would love to see it though.

0

Dungeonmancer t1_issps6u wrote

There are geysers that shoot off into space that can be collected without drilling.

11

donzzler t1_issura1 wrote

I believe that the Cassini mission already did this

4

Dungeonmancer t1_ist05gb wrote

I believe you're right.

There are other ways to collect seawater without risking contamination, is my point. There was also a plan to drill a core, allow it to fill up and freeze, then extract the ice from the tube and study it that way. I'm not sure what the precautions against contamination are, but NASA has a department dedicated to keeping earth microbes out of possible extraterrestrial systems.

4

Wide-Escape-5618 OP t1_ists453 wrote

Imagine swimming around down there😮

2

Hercusleaze t1_isudscg wrote

The water would be inky black due to no light penetrating the ice, and unimaginably deep. I would get anxious just watching footage from an autonomous submersible, nevermind being in a crewed submarine. Swimming there? Nah.

2

grchelp2018 t1_isu8e36 wrote

Surely the radiation on the surface of europa would sterilise any instrument.

1

SmokeyMcPoticus t1_isu4muf wrote

I have such resentment that I live in this age of our space faring technology. I wish to live in an era where we traverse the stars casually faster than the speed of light and see it all (or at least as much as one can see out of it all!)

0

sonoma95436 t1_iswqtma wrote

They are wasting time with Titan. It methane atmosphere is not as likely as water to harbor life Europa's cover of ice protects the water from radiation from Jupiter which is a problem regarding a landing. Europa = Life

0

mzm316 t1_isylasp wrote

It’s far far easier to sample Titan’s conditions than Europa’s with a robotic mission right now, and it’s very far from a waste of time. To sample the hydrocarbons on Europa would require some kind of drilling apparatus that doesn’t exist yet. Are you interested in all of the science that can be done on Titan? Because I work on the Dragonfly mission.

2

push__ t1_it341ib wrote

We couldn't simply catch water from cryovolcanoes?

1

mzm316 t1_it38slh wrote

There isn’t definitive proof of cryogeysers on Europa so a mission involving that would never be selected for funding. But the clipper mission will have enough remote sensing instruments that we don’t really have to fly right through a plume to get a good idea of the conditions that exist - however a “true” sample of the conditions would need to come from the ocean beneath the icy crust because the process of cryovolcanism could possibly taint the sample you’re getting

2

ChubbyWanKenobie t1_issyjdr wrote

Wasting money on another moon landing when this sort of thing is possible is crazy. The next moon landing is expected to cost 35 billion which means, when the smoke clears it will be closer to 50 billion. Imagine if the James Webb engineers had that kind of cheddar to start work on Webb's big brother.

−5

Fiat_Justicia t1_istdxum wrote

We aren't just doing another moon landing. The objective is to establish a permanent presence on the moon. It makes more sense to develop those technologies on the moon before we go to Mars.

6

ChewyBaca123 t1_ist3soz wrote

35B with R&D costs. Each launch after is more so 2-4B

3

seanflyon t1_isusw78 wrote

Each SLS/Orion launch is $4.1 billion, but that only gets you to lunar orbit.

3

ChewyBaca123 t1_isut1ka wrote

Yeah. And starship won’t cost billions to land onto the planet either since it’s reusable.

1

seanflyon t1_isutbam wrote

Yeah, and if you actually wanted a sustainable program you could just skip the SLS/Orion part.

3

Bensemus t1_istop2c wrote

Your numbers are off. It's closer to 100 billion when the dust settles for SLS and Orion plus the missions they fly. If Starship works it will cost a fraction of what SLS costs and will actually make Moon presence possible.

3

mzm316 t1_isym1tm wrote

You’re being downvoted but you’re right. As far as bang for your buck goes, we’re far better off taking the funding from the “moon base” efforts and putting it into more robotic explorations. There are fascinating proposals for missions that don’t get selected due to lack of funding and they would advance our understanding of the world far more than a moon base, which is almost just a PR move.

This is my field and it’s the generally shared opinion among the people in it that SLS and the lunar program has been a waste of time and resources, but unfortunately public opinion relies on “flashy” things like putting people on the moon.

1