Laplace or Tandem?

[CalliArcale]

<p>ESA is going to make a decision about which of these two missions to fund.&nbsp; Which one do you think should get the funds?&nbsp; ;-)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>LAPLACE</strong></p><ul><li>Target: Jupiter and Europa</li><li>may carry Europa impactor</li><li>key goals: verify Europa's ocean, see whether it could be habitable, and learn about the seafloor beneath</li></ul><p><br /><strong>TANDEM</strong></p><ul><li>Target: Saturn, Enceladus, and ultimately Titan</li><li>may carry Titan balloon and mini-landers</li><li>key goals: study Enceladus' ocean and Titan, see whether either is habitable, study Titan's surface for much longer periods than Huygens' could</li></ul> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

<p>My vote would be:</p><p><strong>TANDEM</strong></p><ul><li>Target: Saturn, Enceladus, and ultimately Titan</li><li>may carry Titan balloon and mini-landers</li><li>key goals: study Enceladus' ocean and Titan, see whether either is habitable, study Titan's surface for much longer periods than Huygens' could</li></ul><p>Reason being I think Titan has much more scientific properties.&nbsp; Granted, Europa probably might have the most potential for life, I still think Titan has the most intrigue ATM.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[fractionofadot]

<p>I'd have to know more about what form the Europa "impactor" would take.</p><p>Unless it's somehow going to break the ice and get into the ocean which may be beneath, then I'd go with Tandem. </p><p>&nbsp;Both of these landers will have to be nuclear powered I imagine... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd have to know more about what form the Europa "impactor" would take.Unless it's somehow going to break the ice and get into the ocean which may be beneath, then I'd go with Tandem. &nbsp;Both of these landers will have to be nuclear powered I imagine... <br /> Posted by fractionofadot</DIV></p><p>You have a very cool username, fractionofadot.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /></p><p>Yeah, nuclear power is probably the only solution for a lander.&nbsp; Solar panels come with some serious challenges in the outer solar system; you'd need really whopping big ones, which would mean they'd have to be fragile in order to get the weight down enough, which would mean it'd be tough to get them to survive landing.&nbsp; And Titan's smog probably completely removes the possibility of solar power anyway.&nbsp; Batteries only last so long (that was the issue with Huygens) so nuclear power is the only way to go.&nbsp; RTGs are very reliable, but can they get enough plutonium?&nbsp; It's a very hard substance to come by these days, what with no nuclear weapons programs actively producing it.&nbsp; Fueling these spacecraft usually is a matter of raiding stockpiles.&nbsp; I don't know what channels ESA would have to go through to get some plutonium; in the US, it has to go through the Department of Energy, and it was tough enough to get the stuff for New Horizons.&nbsp; (For a while, it looked like Cassini would be the last American RTG-powered probe.)&nbsp; ESA has to contend with the politics of many different nations as well as the EU.&nbsp; And as with New Horizons, there may also be international arms treaties to consider as well.&nbsp; On the positive side, Europeans tend to be more favorable towards nuclear power than Americans, and so it may be easier to get this through. </p><p>Anybody know much about European nuclear politics? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[fractionofadot]

<p>Heh, thank you CalliArcale <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>I think the most likely source of Plutonium will be France, they recently announced they would be cutting back on their nuclear weapon stockpile - so there is ready source. They also generate 80%(!) of their power from Nuclear energy.</p><p>The UK would be a possibility but I somehow doubt it as it's quite divisive issue there..</p><p>The politics surrounding Nuclear energy are very complex in the EU. The UK & France have recently announced they'll be building more Nuclear power plants and sharing the technology with a view to export; but in Italy and Germany for example, there hasn't been a nuclear power station built in a long time and they're either decomissioning or planning on decomissioning the ones they have built.</p><p>Neither possess nuclear weapons. </p><p>This is going to be a very interesting process, I just hope that whatever happens one of the missions goes ahead. Both have huge potential. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Zipi]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The politics surrounding Nuclear energy are very complex in the EU. The UK & France have recently announced they'll be building more Nuclear power plants and sharing the technology with a view to export; but in Italy and Germany for example, there hasn't been a nuclear power station built in a long time and they're either decomissioning or planning on decomissioning the ones they have built.<br />Posted by fractionofadot</DIV><br /><br />And Finland is currently building the fifth reactor. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />&nbsp;We have also planned to build the sixth one at some time frame but there is no official decision yet. (and yes, I know this is a very minor EU nuclear politics fact, but now I have said it) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anybody know much about European nuclear politics? <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Hi Calliarcale,</p><p>France and Italy have expressed will to develop RTGs, or get electrical power from RHUs... In the case of Titan Saturn System Mission TSSM (previously Tandem in Europe and Titan Explorer in the US) or Europa Jupiter System Mision EJSM (previously Laplace in Europe and Europa Explorer+Ganymede Orbiter in the US), NASA and ESA will commonly select jointly one versus the other as the Outer Planet Flagship Mission (OPFM). Then in 2009, ESA will have the winning OPFM compete with LISA and XEUS. If ESA selects the OPFM as Cosmic Vision first large mission, the program will be NASA-led + participation of ESA (about 600 M&euro. Otherwise, NASA will do it alone.</p><p>&nbsp;So you see that TSSM or EJSM will be in cooperation with NASA anyway. For EJSM, ESA might not do the Europa Orbiter, and enhanced Solar Array would be enough (under development). For TSSM,&nbsp;ESA would do the in-situ elements but the&nbsp;nuclear device to heat&nbsp;the balloon would come from&nbsp;NASA anyway. For smaller probes, it is more open: from US or Russia TBD. But for a launch in 2018, ESA does not baseline a European nuclear source. As a back-up, may be, provided that it is ready in time.</p><p>Best regards.</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV><br /><br />Thanx for that detail. You've really got your ears on the rail! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanx for that detail. You've really got your ears on the rail! <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>No kidding!&nbsp; Thanks, everybody, for those informative responses!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>I'd like both!&nbsp; If I had to chose, I find Titan much more interesting than Europa.</p><p>Some sort of collaboration with NASA would be good, given that both have indciated the need for missions to Jupiter and Saturn</p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Jon</span> <p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>