Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4892 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Apr 2014 at 4:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report