If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Underground ocean found on moon of Saturn. Search for MH370 to start there Monday   (cnn.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, moons, Saturn, oceans, underground ocean, moons of Jupiter, Ganymede, Enceladus, Cassini Spacecraft  
•       •       •

4836 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Apr 2014 at 4:53 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-04 09:19:26 PM  
Lol
 
2014-04-04 11:29:46 PM  
oi60.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-04 11:42:23 PM  
This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.
 
2014-04-05 12:51:56 AM  
DRTFA, but I snorted at subby.
 
2014-04-05 01:13:12 AM  
It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.
 
2014-04-05 01:41:40 AM  

fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.


STOP!

My penis can only get so erect.
 
2014-04-05 02:15:16 AM  

Triumph: [oi60.tinypic.com image 620x349]


Total $27.85M.  As long as it requires less than $233.65M of superglue, we're still in the money.
 
2014-04-05 03:32:08 AM  

Radak: Triumph: [oi60.tinypic.com image 620x349]

Total $27.85M.  As long as it requires less than $233.65M of superglue, we're still in the money.


The thing about that graphic is it's as useless as all the other information.
 
2014-04-05 04:38:11 AM  

Ghastly: fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.

STOP!

My penis can only get so erect.


img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-05 05:03:18 AM  

Triumph: [oi60.tinypic.com image 620x349]


Okay, and how much would those assets have cost over the same time period if they were not engaged in this search?
 
2014-04-05 05:05:44 AM  
That's where Jar Jar Binks' people live!
 
2014-04-05 05:07:38 AM  
Satun has best porn ... 0.10  dollars.
 
2014-04-05 05:13:55 AM  

Ghastly: fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.

STOP!

My penis can only get so erect.


They have a pill for that nowadays
 
2014-04-05 05:20:54 AM  

Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.


I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.
 
2014-04-05 05:26:01 AM  

Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.


My god! It's full of budgetary cuts.
 
2014-04-05 05:31:28 AM  
One of the best headlines I've ever seen here.
 
2014-04-05 05:35:10 AM  

veale728: Ghastly: fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.

STOP!

My penis can only get so erect.

They have a pill for that nowadays


Are you concerned about your ability to be ready?  It could be a question of blood flow.
 
2014-04-05 06:11:10 AM  

Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.


The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

 
2014-04-05 06:18:21 AM  

generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.


But it's still ice. If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.
 
2014-04-05 06:19:15 AM  

Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.


What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)
 
2014-04-05 06:22:53 AM  

Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)


Just don't eat the sushi.
 
2014-04-05 06:23:04 AM  
Well done subby, well done.
 
2014-04-05 06:29:17 AM  

Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)


We're gonna need a bigger slingshot
 
2014-04-05 06:33:44 AM  
Subby...
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-05 06:49:27 AM  

Ebenator: Subby...


You did nazi that coming?
 
2014-04-05 07:13:36 AM  

Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.


Oh so much this.
 
2014-04-05 07:22:26 AM  

generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.


Yah. Equally absurd is the idea of three men in a tin can visiting the moon and bringing back a few rocks. Do you realize what that would take?
 
2014-04-05 07:31:17 AM  

Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)


ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
 
2014-04-05 07:32:19 AM  

August11: generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

Yah. Equally absurd is the idea of three men in a tin can visiting the moon and bringing back a few rocks. Do you realize what that would take?


NASA in it's prime, probably.
 
2014-04-05 07:33:55 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE


But.... diamonds....
 
2014-04-05 07:36:51 AM  
FTFA: No one has actually gone to Enceladus and seen this ocean under the thick ice layer.

What kind of imbeciles is this written for?
 
2014-04-05 07:42:39 AM  

Ghastly: fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.

STOP!

My penis can only get so erect.


In that case, might I recommend 'Europa Report' for your viewing and orgasmic pleasure?
 
2014-04-05 07:49:23 AM  

Ghastly: If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.


And how do you do that? Having done that how do you then transmit data back to the surface/orbit through the miles of ice that has reformed above the probe? On top of both of those, how do you get this probe there without contaminating the environment with earth microbes which have already demonstrated the ability to survive long term exposure to space? If a sub-surface mission is possible at all it would be one of the most significant technological feats ever accomplished by our species and they'd have to do it with a nortoriously small and regularly shrinking budget.



August11: Yah. Equally absurd is the idea of three men in a tin can visiting the moon and bringing back a few rocks. Do you realize what that would take?


Did you have a point or were you just doing stream of consciousness writing?

 
2014-04-05 07:55:37 AM  

Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.


I used to say I wanted to live to see men walk on Mars.  I'm not going to make it.
 
2014-04-05 08:04:34 AM  
generallyso:

And how do you do that?

Dammit Jim, I'm a hentai mangaka not an engineer.
 
2014-04-05 08:10:59 AM  
That Don Lemon gets more ridiculous all the time with his flight 370 theories.
 
2014-04-05 08:23:44 AM  

Ghastly: Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE

But.... diamonds....


It wasn't for the diamonds per se.  It was to cover up the existence of large amounts of Jovian diamond in the Solar System in order to maintain South Africa's near-monopoly on the production and sale of diamond.  If you're trying to keep a market cornered, having a big fat giant proof that your product is abundant is pretty bad.

Now, in the epilogue, where all of the now-ancient buildings were coated in a protective layer of diamond... how the hell did they do THAT?  You can't exactly peel a diamond and apply it like used paint you bought off of Craigslist.
 
2014-04-05 08:26:53 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE


No step?
 
2014-04-05 08:39:36 AM  

SpdrJay: That's where Jar Jar Binks' people live!


I recommend orbital bombardment.
 
2014-04-05 08:40:36 AM  

Ghastly: generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

But it's still ice. If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.


LOL.

This is why you're posting on FARK and not working for NASA.  You'd need the equivalent energy of maybe a few thousand nuclear bombs to melt through miles of ice in an environment that's so incredibly cold that it'd refreeze in a couple of milliseconds.

It's a nice fantasy, though.
 
2014-04-05 08:43:35 AM  

Knight without armor: FTFA: No one has actually gone to Enceladus and seen this ocean under the thick ice layer.

What kind of imbeciles is this written for?


The 10% that don't know they live on Earth?
 
2014-04-05 08:55:41 AM  
sequelimg.fark.net
 
2014-04-05 08:57:45 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-05 09:03:01 AM  

Mister Peejay: Now, in the epilogue, where all of the now-ancient buildings were coated in a protective layer of diamond... how the hell did they do THAT? You can't exactly peel a diamond and apply it like used paint you bought off of Craigslist.


I believe the idea is that we'll eventually be able to control materials at the atomic level, which would allow us to "build" with diamonds by manipulating pure carbon.  I know it sounds crazy, but Clarke wasn't given to wild speculation.  Neal Stephenson (who also writes based in what is scientifically possible) uses the same concept in the The Diamond Age, where airships have envelops of thin sheets of diamond, only he sets his story much closer to the present.
 
2014-04-05 09:10:57 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mister Peejay: Now, in the epilogue, where all of the now-ancient buildings were coated in a protective layer of diamond... how the hell did they do THAT? You can't exactly peel a diamond and apply it like used paint you bought off of Craigslist.

I believe the idea is that we'll eventually be able to control materials at the atomic level, which would allow us to "build" with diamonds by manipulating pure carbon.  I know it sounds crazy, but Clarke wasn't given to wild speculation.  Neal Stephenson (who also writes based in what is scientifically possible) uses the same concept in the The Diamond Age, where airships have envelops of thin sheets of diamond, only he sets his story much closer to the present.


Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds
 
2014-04-05 09:28:32 AM  
Enceladus is a small moon, with a diameter of only about 310 miles. In 2005, Cassini found that fractures called "tiger stripes" in the south polar region emit water vapor jets rich in salt, lead author Luciano Iess of Sapienza Università di Roma in Rome, Italy, said in a press conference Wednesday.

No surprise there; enchiladas usually cause gas jets out of fractures, right?
 
2014-04-05 09:38:23 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds


Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.
 
2014-04-05 09:43:34 AM  

Evil Mackerel: SpdrJay: That's where Jar Jar Binks' people live!

I recommend orbital bombardment.


Yousa thinken yousa people gonna die?
 
2014-04-05 09:44:57 AM  

fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.


Hell with that. I wanna see Trilobites.
 
2014-04-05 09:47:55 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds

Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.



Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't sound crazy/far-fetched, because people are already doing it (on a smaller scale obviously).
 
2014-04-05 09:49:16 AM  

glutto: August11: generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

Yah. Equally absurd is the idea of three men in a tin can visiting the moon and bringing back a few rocks. Do you realize what that would take?

NASA in it's prime, probably.


And with even more funding and popular support.
 
2014-04-05 10:04:05 AM  

SpdrJay: Evil Mackerel: SpdrJay: That's where Jar Jar Binks' people live!

I recommend orbital bombardment.

Yousa thinken yousa people gonna die?


From the first moment that Jar jar was introduced I wanted a propane torch, 250 push pins, a metal coat hanger and a scalpel. I wanted to fillet him like a piece of baklava.
 
2014-04-05 10:28:44 AM  
Well done subby, well done.
 
2014-04-05 10:29:20 AM  

Knight without armor: FTFA: No one has actually gone to Enceladus and seen this ocean under the thick ice layer.

What kind of imbeciles is this written for?


This is CNN. They'll probably have to issue a correction later.
 
2014-04-05 11:03:13 AM  
let's throw a couple of our extra nukes at it & see what crawls out
 
2014-04-05 11:23:04 AM  
It's funny subby cause the search is going to start here. Today. But hey how could you have known right?

www.themalaysianinsider.com
 
2014-04-05 11:23:54 AM  

Evil Mackerel: SpdrJay: Evil Mackerel: SpdrJay: That's where Jar Jar Binks' people live!

I recommend orbital bombardment.

Yousa thinken yousa people gonna die?

From the first moment that Jar jar was introduced I wanted a propane torch, 250 push pins, a metal coat hanger and a scalpel. I wanted to fillet him like a piece of baklava.


You fillet baklava?
 
2014-04-05 11:24:40 AM  

Triumph: [oi60.tinypic.com image 620x349]


$28mil ain't half bad fer a search of this scope, intensity and so very high-profile..

imokwiththis.jpg
 
2014-04-05 11:40:28 AM  

Ghastly: generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

But it's still ice. If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.


Alright, prolly already addressed (haven't read the WFT), but my $0.02..  (and, Ghastly..?  I'm a loooooooooong-time FARKer and honestly respect and listen to everything you have to say..yer in m'Top Ten..  =)   )

As that hypothetical probe melts through (yes, this would work..depending on fuel-source, it might be a bit resource intensive..but not a deal-breaker..), the bore-hole behind it would fill in and re-freeze..damn near instantly..  Now yer faced with the problem of pushing a signal thru 20-50km of ice..  Tricky..  Power requirements = enormous..  You *could* leave a hard-cable antenna stringer to the surface..would be relative child's play, technically..but, how big is this probe gunna be that it has enuff power t'melt thru all that ice..*AND* carry the weight of up to 50km of metal cable..?
 
2014-04-05 11:43:58 AM  

generallyso: Ghastly: If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.

And how do you do that? Having done that how do you then transmit data back to the surface/orbit through the miles of ice that has reformed above the probe?   <snip>


You Bastard..  ;)

/what he said..
 
2014-04-05 11:46:54 AM  
Now NASA can get some funding . . .
 
2014-04-05 12:11:23 PM  

mudesi: LOL.

This is why you're posting on FARK and not working for NASA.   You'd need the equivalent energy of maybe a few thousand nuclear bombs to melt through miles of ice in an environment that's so incredibly cold that it'd refreeze in a couple of milliseconds.

It's a nice fantasy, though.


No.  Just..no.

Last point first; 'milliseconds'..?  Not likely..  'Seconds,' maybe..'Minutes,' more likely.. Heat radiation transfer doesn't happen in space..no medium to transfer into..  (only applies to top of bore-hole..probe temp would be moderating factor, rest o'the way..)  Not a problem for this hypothetical probe at above-local-freezing-temps..even if only by 1-2 degrees..

First point last;  What..??   Really, just "WHAT...?????"   All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple) and a gravity well..probe will ride that bore-hole all the way to the bottom in a toasty (relatively) bubble of liquid..  Nuclear weaponry not required..  Yer *not* melting through *all* the "miles of ice," all at once..  Think "ocean gradually polishing jagged rock or piece of glass into shiny trinket, over years and years and years.."

Good gods, man..!  You have ice in your freezer *right now*..!  You can play with these concepts on yer kitchen table..
 
2014-04-05 12:20:47 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: mudesi: LOL.

This is why you're posting on FARK and not working for NASA.   You'd need the equivalent energy of maybe a few thousand nuclear bombs to melt through miles of ice in an environment that's so incredibly cold that it'd refreeze in a couple of milliseconds.

It's a nice fantasy, though.

No.  Just..no.

Last point first; 'milliseconds'..?  Not likely..  'Seconds,' maybe..'Minutes,' more likely.. Heat radiation transfer doesn't happen in space..no medium to transfer into..  (only applies to top of bore-hole..probe temp would be moderating factor, rest o'the way..)  Not a problem for this hypothetical probe at above-local-freezing-temps..even if only by 1-2 degrees..

First point last;  What..??   Really, just "WHAT...?????"   All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple) and a gravity well..probe will ride that bore-hole all the way to the bottom in a toasty (relatively) bubble of liquid..  Nuclear weaponry not required..  Yer *not* melting through *all* the "miles of ice," all at once..  Think "ocean gradually polishing jagged rock or piece of glass into shiny trinket, over years and years and years.."

Good gods, man..!  You have ice in your freezer *right now*..!  You can play with these concepts on yer kitchen table..


Why not have it drag a pipe behind it that empties into a nearby depression? Just melt and pump melted liquid out of the hole. Nothing to refreeze.
 
2014-04-05 12:23:03 PM  
toosoon.jpg

I know, I know, welcometofark.jpg.
 
2014-04-05 12:25:59 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED:  All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple)


Pretty sure that freezing temps are a property of the material, not the area.

A quick google suggests that surface temperatures are around 73 Kelvin. So you'd still have to heat the probe up by 200C to get through the surface ice. Which would freeze again quite quickly. The problem is not that you can't melt the ice around the probe. And it's not even about melting the ice all at once. Whether you melt it all at once or an inch at a time will take the exact same amount of energy. So you either have to put that energy inside the probe to take down with you, or leave it on the surface and send it down.
 
2014-04-05 12:44:07 PM  

ARNOLD.HART: Why not have it drag a pipe behind it that empties into a nearby depression? Just melt and pump melted liquid out of the hole. Nothing to refreeze.


Pipe heavier than antenna-wire, and space-intensive..worse problem, logistically..plus, weight of a pump that can push liquid 50km up..
 
2014-04-05 12:48:50 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: ARNOLD.HART: Why not have it drag a pipe behind it that empties into a nearby depression? Just melt and pump melted liquid out of the hole. Nothing to refreeze.

Pipe heavier than antenna-wire, and space-intensive..worse problem, logistically..plus, weight of a pump that can push liquid 50km up..


The gravity is much lower and it could do it in shifts when the tidal force is stronger. It could make pipe as it goes somehow or other.
 
2014-04-05 12:53:17 PM  

PirateKing: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED:  All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple)

Pretty sure that freezing temps are a property of the material, not the area.

A quick google suggests that surface temperatures are around 73 Kelvin. So you'd still have to heat the probe up by 200C to get through the surface ice. Which would freeze again quite quickly. The problem is not that you can't melt the ice around the probe. And it's not even about melting the ice all at once. Whether you melt it all at once or an inch at a time will take the exact same amount of energy. So you either have to put that energy inside the probe to take down with you, or leave it on the surface and send it down.


First point, yes..and immaterial..  Freezing-temp is what it is..  Heat the casing to at least a degree warmer..  Done.

Second point, again, yes..and also immaterial..  What yer missing is that which I said about a sufficient power supply onboard, and yer discounting the concept of "over time"..

Example:  I take an ice-cube out of my freezer and put it on the counter..and I leave the freezer open and unplug the fridge..  Is the counter or the freezer going to be ice-free first..?

I add no extra energy to the equation but..ultimately..the result will be the same..no ice..  The *only* difference is time..
 
2014-04-05 12:55:16 PM  

ARNOLD.HART: The gravity is much lower and it could do it in shifts when the tidal force is stronger. It could make pipe as it goes somehow or other.


Unobtanium..  ;)
 
2014-04-05 12:56:05 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: mudesi: LOL.

This is why you're posting on FARK and not working for NASA.   You'd need the equivalent energy of maybe a few thousand nuclear bombs to melt through miles of ice in an environment that's so incredibly cold that it'd refreeze in a couple of milliseconds.

It's a nice fantasy, though.

No.  Just..no.

Last point first; 'milliseconds'..?  Not likely..  'Seconds,' maybe..'Minutes,' more likely.. Heat radiation transfer doesn't happen in space..no medium to transfer into..  (only applies to top of bore-hole..probe temp would be moderating factor, rest o'the way..)  Not a problem for this hypothetical probe at above-local-freezing-temps..even if only by 1-2 degrees..

First point last;  What..??   Really, just "WHAT...?????"   All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple) and a gravity well..probe will ride that bore-hole all the way to the bottom in a toasty (relatively) bubble of liquid..  Nuclear weaponry not required..  Yer *not* melting through *all* the "miles of ice," all at once..  Think "ocean gradually polishing jagged rock or piece of glass into shiny trinket, over years and years and years.."

Good gods, man..!  You have ice in your freezer *right now*..!  You can play with these concepts on yer kitchen table..


You are, of course, aware that water has an exceptionally high heat capacity and it take a lot of energy to change temperature right?  You are also aware that conductive heat loss works in a vacuum and that the sides of the bore hold would absorb heat like a sponge right?

Lets not even get into the fact that the tectonic motion of the ice on Europa would close the bore above the probe, and probably crush the probe as it gets deeper into the ice.
 
2014-04-05 12:56:48 PM  
If cold fusion becomes a reality power source is solved.
 
2014-04-05 01:01:11 PM  

PirateKing: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED:  All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple)

Pretty sure that freezing temps are a property of the material, not the area.

A quick google suggests that surface temperatures are around 73 Kelvin. So you'd still have to heat the probe up by 200C to get through the surface ice. Which would freeze again quite quickly. The problem is not that you can't melt the ice around the probe. And it's not even about melting the ice all at once. Whether you melt it all at once or an inch at a time will take the exact same amount of energy. So you either have to put that energy inside the probe to take down with you, or leave it on the surface and send it down.


You wouldn't even need to sink the probe. It could deploy something akin to a sonde to melt through the ice, with a power/data cable to pick up the results. Thirty miles would be a pretty big cable spool, but maybe it'd be doable with carbon fiber and fiberoptics.
 
2014-04-05 01:12:04 PM  

Egoy3k: You are, of course, aware that water has an exceptionally high heat capacity and it take a lot of energy to change temperature right?  You are also aware that conductive heat loss works in a vacuum and that the sides of the bore hold would absorb heat like a sponge right?

Lets not even get into the fact that the tectonic motion of the ice on Europa would close the bore above the probe, and probably crush the probe as it gets deeper into the ice.


I am waaay past bedtime  (work overnights)  but, yer assuming water-ice..not researching it now, but don't think that's Europa's casing..  Regardless, I already said the bore above the probe would self-seal and we're talking about a probe with the hypothetical tech to melt thru 50km of frozen material..  I highly doubt the average local geological movement is near fast enough that it has to be considered a primary concern..  Also that the probe would have to have a robust enough power source for this to happen..conductive loss or no (what did you not understand about me saying it would ride the bore down in a bubble of liquid..?  Conduction/convection..same in this instance and still of no matter with a proper power source)..possible, easily, with current tech..

N'nite, all..  =)
 
2014-04-05 01:13:30 PM  

Egoy3k: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: mudesi: LOL.

This is why you're posting on FARK and not working for NASA.   You'd need the equivalent energy of maybe a few thousand nuclear bombs to melt through miles of ice in an environment that's so incredibly cold that it'd refreeze in a couple of milliseconds.

It's a nice fantasy, though.

No.  Just..no.

Last point first; 'milliseconds'..?  Not likely..  'Seconds,' maybe..'Minutes,' more likely.. Heat radiation transfer doesn't happen in space..no medium to transfer into..  (only applies to top of bore-hole..probe temp would be moderating factor, rest o'the way..)  Not a problem for this hypothetical probe at above-local-freezing-temps..even if only by 1-2 degrees..

First point last;  What..??   Really, just "WHAT...?????"   All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple) and a gravity well..probe will ride that bore-hole all the way to the bottom in a toasty (relatively) bubble of liquid..  Nuclear weaponry not required..  Yer *not* melting through *all* the "miles of ice," all at once..  Think "ocean gradually polishing jagged rock or piece of glass into shiny trinket, over years and years and years.."

Good gods, man..!  You have ice in your freezer *right now*..!  You can play with these concepts on yer kitchen table..

You are, of course, aware that water has an exceptionally high heat capacity and it take a lot of energy to change temperature right?  You are also aware that conductive heat loss works in a vacuum and that the sides of the bore hold would absorb heat like a sponge right?

Lets not even get into the fact that the tectonic motion of the ice on Europa would close the bore above the probe, and probably crush the probe as it gets deeper into the ice.


Its a good thing you have no idea how tunnel boring works.  Because this gives me an opportunity to *stuff*.

Aside from the fact that no reasonable solution will be carried on a mere probe we can solve many of the issues about which you speak.

Already designs and patents exist for nuclear powered tunnel boring machines.  These machines are designed to melt solid rock using molten lithium to heat a cutting collar.  The resultant muck is then transported out on conveyor belt (ice slurry could either be kept heated and pumped out, or allowed to refreeze and conveyed out similarly).  Some of that muck (be it ice or rock) is taken through a secondary system and used to coat the inside of said tunnel giving it a smooth glassy lining that is also structurally sound and strengthens the tunnel against collapse.

Yes a machine like this on Enceladus would have to have been rigorously tested and additionally have to be heavily modified compared to its molten rock boring cousin for operation in a near vacuum and -300F temperatures.  It would also be massively heavy, probably be transported in parts and assembled in prepared space...on a manned outpost on Enceladus itself.

So you have all of those additional hurdles not to mention all the time involved.  While the aforementioned outpost is there they can do surveys for the most tidally and geologically stable area in which to do this tunnel.  Also this would be a good location for Ice Station Impossible!  And yes it would have to be named that.
 
2014-04-05 01:14:40 PM  
Ghastly

... If you make a probe that heats it's casing ... home.earthlink.net

Anyway, the entire drill string would have to be heated, at least until it broke through to this "ocean", lest it get locked in place by new ice. That's a helluvalotta watts for a practical probe to generate, isn't it?

// As if ten miles of heated plumbing is a snap as well.
 
2014-04-05 01:24:28 PM  
It is great that they seem to have found a black box transmitter today. Verification of course needs to be done.

As to getting down to the lower levels of Enceladus, some researchers believe there are ice quakes on these planets, and so there are various rifts or fissures in the structure of the ice that could make the need for direct drilling much less physically challenging.

However even if it was neccessary to ice dive 7 miles, you could probably do it with a multi part probe about the total size and weight twice that of Cassini probe (about the size/weigh of 1 tractor trailer combination).
Orbital component - cassini size
surface ground component (Ice house external shell component that could insulate area hole was being melted into) then the following unpacking and entering the surface/crust of enceladus.
1. Primary heating/drilling probe lead component
2. Active roving underwater/ocean probe
3. 25 independent signal repeaters deployed/left behind every 1/5 or a mile deep or so behind the boring/submersible components that would transmit the rover's findings back up the bore hole/through ice to the surface ground/Ice house component and then from that location  broadcast to the orbital component that would then send the data back to Earth/Nasa.

The process, the energy needs and many other things could all be tested in either of these 863,000 cubic foot or 400,000 cubic foot facilities that can be brought down to temperatures of 3K and vacuum effects close to that of orbital space without even leaving Earth.

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2013/03/nasa_plum_brook_va cu um_chamber.html

I'm sure we could technically do it, but of course we'd still need the money from congress to pay for it, and that would probably be the equivalent cost of Cassini and all of the past 7 Mars lander/orbital programs combined. That cost would be ~ $10 Billion.

For the fiscally minded that's ~$85 per household in one year's tax payments. In comparison the average tax paying household is paying roughly $715 a year in taxes to subsidize the oil/coal/natural gas/corn industries operations in the US, and another ~$3500 a year to pay for the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine operations/upkeep worldwide.
 
2014-04-05 01:29:10 PM  

ARNOLD.HART: If cold fusion becomes a reality power source is solved.


No need for cold fusion fantasies. Nuclear reactors have no trouble at all heating themselves to several hundred centigrade, in fact the usual problem is cooling. A small nuke reactor inside a conductive metal casing thick enough to prevent radiological contamination of the environment (which would also be thick enough to serve as a pressure vessel for the descent) would eventually get hot enough to bore through by its density alone.

You'd need miles of diamond monofilament-wrapped fibre line or something to transmit data back to the approximately schoolbus-sized surface lander, and instruments that wouldn't be affected by close proximity to the hot reactor, but those are merely expensive challenges to solve, not impossible ones.

You'd be unable to ever recover the subsurface probe of course, so no samples could be brought back for analysis in an onboard lab, but there are ways to route around that.

And finally, who said anything about boring through 30+ miles of ice? Europa's ocean is thought to periodically break through the ice surface in cracks. Just land the probe near one of these thinner regions where the ice is only a kilometer thick or so.
 
2014-04-05 01:38:47 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dwight_Yeast: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds

Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.


Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't sound crazy/far-fetched, because people are already doing it (on a smaller scale obviously).


Can someone tell me what book you guys are talking about? Sounds like it could be a fun read.
 
2014-04-05 01:50:07 PM  

buckler: PirateKing: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED:  All you need is a power source that can maintain a casing temp of 1+ degrees above local-freezing (tech-simple)

Pretty sure that freezing temps are a property of the material, not the area.

A quick google suggests that surface temperatures are around 73 Kelvin. So you'd still have to heat the probe up by 200C to get through the surface ice. Which would freeze again quite quickly. The problem is not that you can't melt the ice around the probe. And it's not even about melting the ice all at once. Whether you melt it all at once or an inch at a time will take the exact same amount of energy. So you either have to put that energy inside the probe to take down with you, or leave it on the surface and send it down.

You wouldn't even need to sink the probe. It could deploy something akin to a sonde to melt through the ice, with a power/data cable to pick up the results. Thirty miles would be a pretty big cable spool, but maybe it'd be doable with carbon fiber and fiberoptics.


Wait, nix that. The ice would re-freeze around the cable, preventing it from advancing.
 
2014-04-05 02:43:13 PM  

kroonermanblack: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dwight_Yeast: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds

Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.


Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't sound crazy/far-fetched, because people are already doing it (on a smaller scale obviously).

Can someone tell me what book you guys are talking about? Sounds like it could be a fun read.

2061: Odyssey Three

 
2014-04-05 02:53:20 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE


Ok. We won't step one foot on the surface. We'll nuke it from orbit. We're good right?
 
2014-04-05 03:45:33 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Pipe heavier than antenna-wire, and space-intensive..worse problem, logistically..plus, weight of a pump that can push liquid 50km up


You'll forgive me, but I don't take my science lectures from people who cannot express complex thoughts.  Not because I'm sure they know less about science than me, but because I am sure it would impossible for me to learn anything from them.

You may be having wonderfully detailed and complex thoughts up in that mind of yours, but none of that makes it through in a mess of fragmented sentences and ellipses.

Seriously... wtf... is up with ellip....ses in the writing o...f... people?
 
2014-04-05 04:54:14 PM  
+2 for the topicality of the headline, subby.  Definitely HOTW, maybe HOTY material.
 
2014-04-05 05:23:42 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: You'd need miles of diamond monofilament-wrapped fibre line or something to transmit data back to the approximately schoolbus-sized surface lander,


Maybe the probe could release a string of relays behind it? Of course, they'd also need a source of power (or batteries).
 
2014-04-05 06:18:43 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Ghastly: generallyso: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

The surface ice is miles thick, possibly tens of miles. The deepest drill hole on Earth is about 7 miles deep and the equipment to make it wasn't required to fit inside a space probe.

But it's still ice. If you make a probe that heats it's casing to a temperature that melts through the ice and keeps going until it melts all the way through. No drilling required and gets rid of the problem of the ice being literally as hard as rock.

Alright, prolly already addressed (haven't read the WFT), but my $0.02..  (and, Ghastly..?  I'm a loooooooooong-time FARKer and honestly respect and listen to everything you have to say..yer in m'Top Ten..  =)   )

As that hypothetical probe melts through (yes, this would work..depending on fuel-source, it might be a bit resource intensive..but not a deal-breaker..), the bore-hole behind it would fill in and re-freeze..damn near instantly..  Now yer faced with the problem of pushing a signal thru 20-50km of ice..  Tricky..  Power requirements = enormous..  You *could* leave a hard-cable antenna stringer to the surface..would be relative child's play, technically..but, how big is this probe gunna be that it has enuff power t'melt thru all that ice..*AND* carry the weight of up to 50km of metal cable..?


It would probably be about the size of a locomotive engine.Part of the probe would remain on the surface and communicate with an orbital satellite which would relay the data to earth. It would be tethered to the descent probe and provide it with power via a nuclear reactor. The probe would melt through the ice spooling the cable behind it. The water would refreeze behind it and hold the cable in place.  The nuclear reactor wouldn't be a danger to any life on Europa because the surface radiation is already at lethal levels so any life that exists will be under the ice and well away from any danger the power plant might pose. The probe will have to be built in orbit and launched from there. In any case assuming I live to the age of 100 they have until 1965 to overcome the technical requirements for the mission. Although frankly we could probably build the tech right now but for the cost and lack of political will.
 
2014-04-05 08:24:36 PM  

Freschel: kroonermanblack: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dwight_Yeast: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds

Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.


Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't sound crazy/far-fetched, because people are already doing it (on a smaller scale obviously).

Can someone tell me what book you guys are talking about? Sounds like it could be a fun read.

2061: Odyssey Three


So, in series with 2001, I assume? I didn't look it up yet.
 
2014-04-05 09:24:06 PM  
The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:

1.bp.blogspot.com

No, people, you can't send a probe to melt the farking ice, nor can you pump the water out through a pipe.  Jesus Christ.  I won't name names. You know who you are.  For God's sake, get more than a D+ in basic high school science before you say things.

 It doesn't matter that you melt the ice "gradually" and "over time", it doesn't matter that the melting point of ice is "only" 0 degrees Celsius.

In order to melt  MILES OF ICE you'd need more energy than can ever,  EVER be stored on a probe and transported all the way over on a moon of motherfarking SATURN.

Really, just...
www.taylorclark.co

REALLY.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-04-05 10:52:42 PM  

mudesi: The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 225x220]

No, people, you can't send a probe to melt the farking ice, nor can you pump the water out through a pipe.  Jesus Christ.  I won't name names. You know who you are.  For God's sake, get more than a D+ in basic high school science before you say things.

 It doesn't matter that you melt the ice "gradually" and "over time", it doesn't matter that the melting point of ice is "only" 0 degrees Celsius.

In order to melt  MILES OF ICE you'd need more energy than can ever,  EVER be stored on a probe and transported all the way over on a moon of motherfarking SATURN.

Really, just...
[www.taylorclark.co image 618x407]

REALLY.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 397x316]


Okay then Mister Science, I will give you that our speculations are fantastical and quite possibly flawed in fundamentals, but since this is your area of expertise why don't you give us a solution that is workable. This is your area of expertise, right? I mean any 4 year old can say "you're a dumb head and your ideas are dumb because your head his so stupid" and then never offer up anything useful to the conversation because let's face it, they're four years old.

So given that you know all the hardcore science tell us how we get a sub-ice crust probe to Europa or if easier then the moon of Saturn.

Surely you have something useful to contribute to the discussion and aren't just here to say "you're wrong". So don't keep it to yourself. Tell us how it can be done if the methods we're suggesting are not workable.
 
2014-04-05 11:07:28 PM  

Ghastly: Surely you have something useful to contribute to the discussion and aren't just here to say "you're wrong". So don't keep it to yourself. Tell us how it can be done if the methods we're suggesting are not workable.


Just because your theories are unworkable does not obligate him to create functional ones for you.

The obvious answer is: It would have to be a manned probe, and/or something a mile or more in size to contain the equipment needed.
 
2014-04-05 11:09:45 PM  

Ghastly: mudesi: The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 225x220]

No, people, you can't send a probe to melt the farking ice, nor can you pump the water out through a pipe.  Jesus Christ.  I won't name names. You know who you are.  For God's sake, get more than a D+ in basic high school science before you say things.

 It doesn't matter that you melt the ice "gradually" and "over time", it doesn't matter that the melting point of ice is "only" 0 degrees Celsius.

In order to melt  MILES OF ICE you'd need more energy than can ever,  EVER be stored on a probe and transported all the way over on a moon of motherfarking SATURN.

Really, just...
[www.taylorclark.co image 618x407]

REALLY.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 397x316]

Okay then Mister Science, I will give you that our speculations are fantastical and quite possibly flawed in fundamentals, but since this is your area of expertise why don't you give us a solution that is workable. This is your area of expertise, right? I mean any 4 year old can say "you're a dumb head and your ideas are dumb because your head his so stupid" and then never offer up anything useful to the conversation because let's face it, they're four years old.

So given that you know all the hardcore science tell us how we get a sub-ice crust probe to Europa or if easier then the moon of Saturn.

Surely you have something useful to contribute to the discussion and aren't just here to say "you're wrong". So don't keep it to yourself. Tell us how it can be done if the methods we're suggesting are not workable.


You are wrong is a perfectly valid response in science discussions. No alternate solution is required.
 
2014-04-05 11:20:08 PM  
 
2014-04-05 11:23:34 PM  

Ghastly: mudesi: The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:


Okay then Mister Science, I will give you that our speculations are fantastical and quite possibly flawed in fundamentals, but since this is your area of expertise why don't you give us a solution that is workable. This is your area of expertise, right? I mean any 4 year old can say "you're a dumb head and your ideas are dumb because your head his so stupid" and then never offer up anything useful to the conversation because let's face it, they're four years old.

So given that you know all the hardcore science tell us how we get a sub-ice crust probe to Europa or if easier then the moon of Saturn.



LOL.  Are you listening to me?  It's not possible.  There IS NO WORKABLE SOLUTION based on what you guys are saying.  Your ideas are dumb.  They demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic, BASIC, grade school stuff.  You'd have to go up there and build a nuclear power plant to do what you're proposing.

And - if I may go out on a limb here - if we had the ability to go up there to build a nuclear power plant, we'd probably be able to just send a team of drillers and dig a farking hole instead.  Somebody call Bruce Willis.
 
2014-04-05 11:30:27 PM  
Smackledorfer:
You are wrong is a perfectly valid response in science discussions. No alternate solution is required.

Sure, just saying "you're wrong" and nothing more is perfectly fine way to respond even if the more accurate response is "I don't know the solution so I will just ridicule those who are trying to answer it".

Thankfully science has never been satisfied with " I don't know" and if history has shown us anything when it comes to technology those who say "impossible" have often been shown to be woefully short sighted.
 
2014-04-05 11:35:57 PM  
mudesi:
LOL.  Are you listening to me?  It's not possible.  There IS NO WORKABLE SOLUTION based on what you guys are saying.  Your ideas are dumb.  They demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic, BASIC, grade school stuff.  You'd have to go up there and build a nuclear power plant to do what you're proposing.

And - if I may go out on a limb here - if we had the ability to go up there to build a nuclear power plant, we'd probably be able to just send a team of drillers and dig a farking hole instead.  Somebody call Bruce Willis.


Are you people nuts? You can't sail west to India. If the sea dragons don't eat you first you'll sail off the edge of the world and then it's nothing but turtles all the way down.

I tell you what. If science hasn't come up with a solution to this problem before my 100th birthday I'll buy you a coke.
 
2014-04-06 12:09:20 AM  

Ghastly: Smackledorfer:
You are wrong is a perfectly valid response in science discussions. No alternate solution is required.

Sure, just saying "you're wrong" and nothing more is perfectly fine way to respond even if the more accurate response is "I don't know the solution so I will just ridicule those who are trying to answer it".

Thankfully science has never been satisfied with " I don't know" and if history has shown us anything when it comes to technology those who say "impossible" have often been shown to be woefully short sighted.


Science doesn't stop at 'i don't know', but neither does it greenlight every bad idea that comes along.

Guy A, "I think blending frogs with chocolate milk and doing a colonic will give me psychic powers like time travel"

Guy B, "uhh, no.

Guy A, "i am a better scientist, at least i tried to give myself psychic powers, you are just being a negative nancy"

B, "facepalm"

A, "ok, rats with chocolate milk?"
 
2014-04-06 12:16:37 AM  

Smackledorfer: Ghastly: Smackledorfer:
You are wrong is a perfectly valid response in science discussions. No alternate solution is required.

Sure, just saying "you're wrong" and nothing more is perfectly fine way to respond even if the more accurate response is "I don't know the solution so I will just ridicule those who are trying to answer it".

Thankfully science has never been satisfied with " I don't know" and if history has shown us anything when it comes to technology those who say "impossible" have often been shown to be woefully short sighted.

Science doesn't stop at 'i don't know', but neither does it greenlight every bad idea that comes along.


In then one hundred years before I was born mankind was able to go from steam powered locomotion to sending rockets to the moon. Just 4 years after I was born we walked on it.

If I were a betting man I would say the people in the "it is impossible for us to ever probe beneath the ice crust of Europa" will be in the same camp as the "it is impossible for heavier than air aircraft to exist".

I, for one, do not see the quest to unlock Europa's secrets as a " bad idea".
 
2014-04-06 12:22:11 AM  

Ghastly: Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE

But.... diamonds....


And the pirate twins!
 
2014-04-06 12:23:23 AM  

ciberido: Ghastly: Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE

But.... diamonds....

And the pirate twins!


Ta republique.
 
2014-04-06 12:41:31 AM  

MechaPyx: Dwight_Yeast: Freschel: Dimensio: Ghastly: This is cool and all but god dammit NASA when are we going to get a sub-ice probe of Europa happening? I'm not getting any younger and I would really love to see what's under there before I kick it.

I suspect that NASA will attempt no landing there.

What if someone somehow "accidentally" crash landed on Europa and we have to get a "rescue mission" to land there. ;)

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE

Ok. We won't step one foot on the surface. We'll nuke it from orbit. We're good right?


Well, to be fair, it IS the only way to be sure.
 
2014-04-06 01:09:34 AM  
One of the authors of the Science paper is a former colleague of mine. Very smart guy...

/csb
 
2014-04-06 01:32:57 AM  

kroonermanblack: Freschel: kroonermanblack: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Dwight_Yeast: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Depositing a protective diamond coating on a substrate is a technology which is already in use today.

/manipulating carbon, not peeling space diamonds

Right.  In 2061, they want the diamonds because they're going to cut them up and use them for various purposes, but there's an epilogue set far in the future where the buildings are covered in diamond.  By that point, they don't need the big space diamonds, because they can manipulate carbon.

/Like I said before, what's interesting is that Neal Stephenson suggest we'll skip the step of mining for big diamonds somewhere out in space and go right to manipulating atoms, some time in the next 100 years.


Yeah, I'm just saying it doesn't sound crazy/far-fetched, because people are already doing it (on a smaller scale obviously).

Can someone tell me what book you guys are talking about? Sounds like it could be a fun read.

2061: Odyssey Three

So, in series with 2001, I assume? I didn't look it up yet.


Eyup
 
2014-04-06 01:58:29 AM  

Ghastly: Smackledorfer: Ghastly: Smackledorfer:
You are wrong is a perfectly valid response in science discussions. No alternate solution is required.

Sure, just saying "you're wrong" and nothing more is perfectly fine way to respond even if the more accurate response is "I don't know the solution so I will just ridicule those who are trying to answer it".

Thankfully science has never been satisfied with " I don't know" and if history has shown us anything when it comes to technology those who say "impossible" have often been shown to be woefully short sighted.

Science doesn't stop at 'i don't know', but neither does it greenlight every bad idea that comes along.

In then one hundred years before I was born mankind was able to go from steam powered locomotion to sending rockets to the moon. Just 4 years after I was born we walked on it.

If I were a betting man I would say the people in the "it is impossible for us to ever probe beneath the ice crust of Europa" will be in the same camp as the "it is impossible for heavier than air aircraft to exist".

I, for one, do not see the quest to unlock Europa's secrets as a " bad idea".


What you think you sound like: wright brother

What you actually are: the goofy bastard at redbull flugstag.


Sorry. You are confusing your daydreamy fark musings with science.
 
2014-04-06 01:59:41 AM  

mudesi: The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 225x220]

No, people, you can't send a probe to melt the farking ice, nor can you pump the water out through a pipe.  Jesus Christ.  I won't name names. You know who you are.  For God's sake, get more than a D+ in basic high school science before you say things.

 It doesn't matter that you melt the ice "gradually" and "over time", it doesn't matter that the melting point of ice is "only" 0 degrees Celsius.

In order to melt  MILES OF ICE you'd need more energy than can ever,  EVER be stored on a probe and transported all the way over on a moon of motherfarking SATURN.

Really, just...
[www.taylorclark.co image 618x407]

REALLY.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 397x316]


Plutonium-238 generates enough heat from its own decay that a plutonium-238 oxide pellet will glow when it's just sitting there.  It generates about half a watt per gram, and is used commonly in space applications as a heat source which requires no stored energy.  The half-life of about 88 years means it lasts plenty of time for something like this, and a few kilos would be more than enough to melt its way through miles of ice.  It would just make its way down through the ice sheet in a moving "bubble" of melted liquid (and possibly steam, depending on how much of the isotope is used).  Also, it only emits alpha radiation, so it won't leave the whole area irradiated on its way down, and is relatively easy to shield to prevent it from killing any organisms it gets close to.
 
2014-04-06 02:06:30 AM  

threedingers: One of the authors of the Science paper is a former colleague of mine. Very smart guy...

/csb


Speaking of scientists, when I was a guest at a sci-fi/anime/fantasy/technology convention I was sitting in the green room with this bonafide NASA scientist. Had a really great time talking to him. He was telling me one of his biggest disappointments was that we never developed orbital solar plants to harvest solar energy and transmit it to earth as microwave radiation. Basically giant floating solar panels the size of about 3 football fields.

Had a great time talking to him about technology and speculative fiction and then somehow the conversation turned to politics. And things got pretty intense. Conspiracy theories, coming revolution, statues of Ayn Rand everywhere, blowing up the White House. He started getting really agitated and the other people sitting at the table started leaving but he was fixated on me and I was thinking "I better get out of here". So I told him I had a panel on Evil But Cute with Randy Milholland and Jon Rosenberg and whoever "4rth Guy" was going to be and I really had to get to it (even though the panel wasn't for another hour). He started writing down a lot of of stuff on a piece of paper, websites addresses and other stuff and pressed it into my hand telling me it was really important and stuff I would need to know to survive what was coming. I told him I'd check it out but I really had to get going.

I have never in my life met such an intense combination of brilliant and batshiat crazy.

I don't know what the fark was on that piece of paper but I'd be damned if I was going to have that on my person going through airport security. So I folded it up and left it in the bible in the hotel room figuring it should scare the crap out of whoever found it.

Good times.... good times...
 
2014-04-06 02:09:14 AM  
Smackledorfer:

Sorry. You are confusing your daydreamy fark musings with science.

I never said I was doing anything more than daydreaming. I have no idea how they'll get a sub-ice probe on Europa but I am an certain that they will. I just hope I don't kick it before they do.

Forgive me for having an imagination.
 
2014-04-06 02:13:27 AM  

Ghastly: Smackledorfer:

Sorry. You are confusing your daydreamy fark musings with science.

I never said I was doing anything more than daydreaming. I have no idea how they'll get a sub-ice probe on Europa but I am an certain that they will. I just hope I don't kick it before they do.

Forgive me for having an imagination.


I was fine with your imagination right up until you got all demandy that people saying your musings were wrong were required to provide alternative theories or else they were somehow anti-scientific progress.

We all have our lines in the sand I guess.

Aso, thanks QA, however we WILL pull off life in space someday :p
 
2014-04-06 02:35:39 AM  
Smackledorfer:
Forgive me for having an imagination.

I was fine with your imagination right up until you got all demandy that people saying your musings were wrong were required to provide alternative theories or else they were somehow anti-scientific progress.

We all have our lines in the sand I guess.

Aso, thanks QA, however we WILL pull off life in space someday :p


What I was saying is ANYBODY can come into a thread and shiat all over while acting like a sanctimonious prick and giving nothing of value to the discussion.

To drop into a speculative discussion and say "ZOMG!!! You idiots! It would take THOUSANDS OF NUCLEAR BOMBS to get through that much ice" and then mock other people's speculation while offering nothing, that deserves to be called out.

Saying "you're wrong" doesn't mean science is on your side and if you're not going to offer anything more than "you're wrong" then you've contributed nothing to the conversation and should have your opinion just as readily dismissed.

I've not claimed to be a rocket scientist. I make my living as an artist but I don't see how someone who gives nothing  more to the conversation than pictures of Captain Picard and "thousands of nuclear bombs" is more qualified to have an opinion on the subject nor do I understand why his opinion should be beyond reproach.

But please, take all the umbrage you wish. They're just laying about in the lost and found anyway.
 
2014-04-06 04:32:15 AM  
Nice work, subby.
 
2014-04-06 07:00:20 AM  

SpaceButler: It would just make its way down through the ice sheet in a moving "bubble" of melted liquid (and possibly steam, depending on how much of the isotope is used).


That's great. You've got an irradiated slug of metal on the bottom of the planet.

Now how do you A) capture data with it, B) send that data anywhere through thousands of kilos of ice?
 
2014-04-06 07:38:36 AM  

kroonermanblack: SpaceButler: It would just make its way down through the ice sheet in a moving "bubble" of melted liquid (and possibly steam, depending on how much of the isotope is used).

That's great. You've got an irradiated slug of metal on the bottom of the planet.

Now how do you A) capture data with it, B) send that data anywhere through thousands of kilos of ice?


One possibility is that a cryobot melting its way through the ice could leave behind a series of transceivers as it goes, to relay data back to a communicator on the surface without the need for a massive tether which would be vulnerable to shifting ice. NASA has shown some interest in the whole melty-proby idea, but it isn't clear whether any of the scientists involved had received better than a D+ in basic farking high school science class before moving on to JPL/NASA/etc.
 
2014-04-06 07:49:02 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: kroonermanblack: SpaceButler: It would just make its way down through the ice sheet in a moving "bubble" of melted liquid (and possibly steam, depending on how much of the isotope is used).

That's great. You've got an irradiated slug of metal on the bottom of the planet.

Now how do you A) capture data with it, B) send that data anywhere through thousands of kilos of ice?

One possibility is that a cryobot melting its way through the ice could leave behind a series of transceivers as it goes, to relay data back to a communicator on the surface without the need for a massive tether which would be vulnerable to shifting ice. NASA has shown some interest in the whole melty-proby idea, but it isn't clear whether any of the scientists involved had received better than a D+ in basic farking high school science class before moving on to JPL/NASA/etc.


I really love the mental image of a descending robot probe pooping out a chain of transceivers as it makes its way to the under-ice ocean.
 
2014-04-06 09:45:46 AM  

fusillade762: It would be cool if Enceladus had cephalopods.


NO.

img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-06 10:53:48 AM  

Smackledorfer: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Pipe heavier than antenna-wire, and space-intensive..worse problem, logistically..plus, weight of a pump that can push liquid 50km up

You'll forgive me, but I don't take my science lectures from people who cannot express complex thoughts.  Not because I'm sure they know less about science than me, but because I am sure it would impossible for me to learn anything from them.

You may be having wonderfully detailed and complex thoughts up in that mind of yours, but none of that makes it through in a mess of fragmented sentences and ellipses.

Seriously... wtf... is up with ellip....ses in the writing o...f... people?


I was going to reply in more detail but I see you've since been wonderfully deflated by others, here.  So, three short points only in reply..

1 - I have been having eating and sleeping issues I find rather concerning, over the past couple months.  I had to be up for work in 4-5'ish hours at the time I posted that, using brevity to keep up with conversation.  I had eaten all of 1 can of spaghettio's in the 4 days previous, and had a 12-hour shift ahead..  Of what was in that post, all fragments are internally consistent and keeping with the topic.  Odd that you ignored the other posts..that are longer and far less ellipse-filled..expressing complete, clear thoughts and ideas when you chose to make your offhanded judgement of me..

2 -  I am, by training, a Marine scientist and computer Engineer.  I've had a lifelong fascination with all things space and have been a serious Astronomy/Cosmology/Space-Tech 'Amateur' for almost 4 decades..was drawing schematics of SkyLab two years before it came down..

3 - I..like..ellipses..  And can spell properly, as well..  It appears you are lacking in both these abilities..


Cheers..!
 
2014-04-06 01:52:41 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Smackledorfer: CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: Pipe heavier than antenna-wire, and space-intensive..worse problem, logistically..plus, weight of a pump that can push liquid 50km up

You'll forgive me, but I don't take my science lectures from people who cannot express complex thoughts.  Not because I'm sure they know less about science than me, but because I am sure it would impossible for me to learn anything from them.

You may be having wonderfully detailed and complex thoughts up in that mind of yours, but none of that makes it through in a mess of fragmented sentences and ellipses.

Seriously... wtf... is up with ellip....ses in the writing o...f... people?

I was going to reply in more detail but I see you've since been wonderfully deflated by others, here.  So, three short points only in reply..

1 - I have been having eating and sleeping issues I find rather concerning, over the past couple months.  I had to be up for work in 4-5'ish hours at the time I posted that, using brevity to keep up with conversation.  I had eaten all of 1 can of spaghettio's in the 4 days previous, and had a 12-hour shift ahead..  Of what was in that post, all fragments are internally consistent and keeping with the topic.  Odd that you ignored the other posts..that are longer and far less ellipse-filled..expressing complete, clear thoughts and ideas when you chose to make your offhanded judgement of me..

2 -  I am, by training, a Marine scientist and computer Engineer.  I've had a lifelong fascination with all things space and have been a serious Astronomy/Cosmology/Space-Tech 'Amateur' for almost 4 decades..was drawing schematics of SkyLab two years before it came down..

3 - I..like..ellipses..  And can spell properly, as well..  It appears you are lacking in both these abilities..


Cheers..!


1 is a valid excuse for errors, not deliberately bad writing.

2 shows you are intelligent enough that you should have picked up basic communication skills in high school.

3 is an extremely lame counter. "well, you're writing is not perfect" is a terrible justification for incomplete thoughts and fragmented crap.
 
2014-04-06 01:57:33 PM  

CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: 3 - I..like..ellipses..  And can spell properly, as well..  It appears you are lacking in both these abilities..


I cannot find any spelling errors of mine in this thread, would you point them out so I can improve my writing?

How is 'liking ellipses' an "ability"?
 
2014-04-06 02:26:44 PM  

mudesi: The shocking lack of basic science literacy in this thread makes me want to do this:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 225x220]

No, people, you can't send a probe to melt the farking ice, nor can you pump the water out through a pipe.  Jesus Christ.  I won't name names. You know who you are.  For God's sake, get more than a D+ in basic high school science before you say things.

 It doesn't matter that you melt the ice "gradually" and "over time", it doesn't matter that the melting point of ice is "only" 0 degrees Celsius.

In order to melt  MILES OF ICE you'd need more energy than can ever,  EVER be stored on a probe and transported all the way over on a moon of motherfarking SATURN.

Really, just...
[www.taylorclark.co image 618x407]

REALLY.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 397x316]


You might be right, but just saying "You're stupid, that would never work" is not an argument.  You've given people no reason to take your side in this argument.

I mean, if you're just here to insult people and mock them, have at it and enjoy, but if you're trying to CONVINCE anyone of anything, you're failing.
 
2014-04-06 02:29:36 PM  

kroonermanblack: Ghastly: Surely you have something useful to contribute to the discussion and aren't just here to say "you're wrong". So don't keep it to yourself. Tell us how it can be done if the methods we're suggesting are not workable.

Just because your theories are unworkable does not obligate him to create functional ones for you.


No, but it DOES obligate him to explain why they are unworkable, if he wants third parties to agree with him.

There are disinterested parties who, through no lack of intelligence (though perhaps because of a lack of knowledge about science) do not immediately see why the theories in question are unworkable.  "That's stupid!" isn't an argument or reasonable explanation.  All it really establishes is that the person saying it is unpleasant and belligerent.
 
2014-04-06 02:50:20 PM  

ciberido: No, but it DOES obligate him to explain why they are unworkable, if he wants third parties to agree with him.


He mentions the energy required to change the temperature of miles thick ice. Are we operating under the assumption that "let's send out an orb to a place across the solar system and melt through miles of ice" is a valid suggestion until someone calculates how many miles of ice and how much power is required?

I enjoy daydreaming about stuff like this as much as the next guy. I don't see why someone's passing fancy in a discussion requires such a high bar to be met for those who disagree.

If guy A says "x could work" with no details or math or concept of scale, why is guy B held to a higher standard when saying "x would not work"?

Afaict, Mudesi provided as much or more reasoning for his comment than the people he detracts from.
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report