Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crowd-Funding a Mission To Jupiter's Moons

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Space 86

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Like so many great leaps for mankind, getting a human to one of Jupiter's moons must begin with a small step. And Objective Europa is aiming to do exactly that. A small team — architects, futurist designers, private space pioneers and even Jacques Cousteau's son — is beginning the planning stage to send human beings on a one-way trip to the Jovian moon Europa. The effort is headed up by Kristian Von Bengston, the founder of Copenhagen Suborbitals, an open source DIY space program based in his native Denmark. And he's quite serious about transporting a man or woman beyond our atmosphere, Mars and the asteroid belt."

cancel ×

86 comments

Umm... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44461979)

Open the pod bay door, HAL.

Re:Umm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462129)

Wrong movie dipshit. Europa was 2010 not 2001.

Re:Umm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462161)

If they are actually serious... well, then they're idiots. This is so many orders of magnitude beyond anything attempted before that it was a dream at the height of Cold War spending on world space programs. People think "ah, Earth, moon, Mars, Jupiter, ...", but they never bother to look at how many extra zeros you add to distances and times and risks and costs and....

Re:Umm... (3, Insightful)

Yoda222 (943886) | about a year ago | (#44462707)

There are also COTS technology order of magnitude cheaper and better for space technology that was available during the cold war. Not for all subsystems, but for some of them. You have higher specific impulse technology (but low thrust, bad point for human mission, but good for mass), cheaper sensor (anything you want, gyro, sun, star, ... you could not have found that easily before, now it's just about making a few phone calls and cash, it's not cheap, but also not millions of $), you can find better space hardened processors/ram which are not comparable to what was available during cold war.

You can also book a launch to earth suburbs "easily"(still expensive) but if this is from Copenhagen Suborbital, I suppose that they want to use their own launcher, if they finish this project)

On the other hand, there are still a lot of place where not a lot of progress have been made, like radiation protection which must still be massive, because humans have a tendency to die easily. Maybe we can change humans ?

They speak of a time frame of 30 to 50 years, 50 years being more than the time between Sputnik and the ISS

Will they make it in 50 years ? Probably not. But it's a hobby, you still have to do something in your free time, no ? And even if it's not a hobby but a paid job, there is not enough job on earth if people only do useful stuff, so why not trying to do something else ?

Re:Umm... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#44463253)

" to send human beings on a one-way trip to the Jovian moon Europa"

          G'WAN ya indigent scumbags, and don't come back!

I want to know if this is going to be a Botany Bay sort of strategy or something equally as beneficial.

Landing? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44461985)

As long as we attempt no landings there.

Re:Landing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462343)

What is so funny is that Arthur C. Clarke's book has become so ingrained into global culture that I think there will be a bunch of silly protests when landings are attempted there.

Re:Landing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463023)

They did attempt landings there in Europa Report IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2051879/

Look how well that turned out for them.

A Slashdot first (-1, Offtopic)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#44462001)

Slashdot posted a poll about facebook with the comments muzzled.

I have never seen Slashdot pulling such a stunt before. A simple mistake? No. The poll lasted for a good several days, and commenting was disabled through the duration.

Re:A Slashdot first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462097)

Go exercise your paranoia in the open comments for the poll about Facebook.

Re:A Slashdot first (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#44462157)

My paranoia doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Re:A Slashdot first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462525)

It's certain to make others go after you, though.

Re:A Slashdot first (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#44462527)

Bring it on, mofos, bring it on.

Lets find the best Kerbal Space Engineer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462009)

Step 3 Profit.

You mean like K'Starter? (3, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44462051)

Who expects to live long enough to take possession of their collector edition t-shirt and fake rock?

I'd rather croud fund a mission to Uranus! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462133)

Thanks - I'm here all week!

Re:I'd rather croud fund a mission to Uranus! (-1, Flamebait)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#44462289)

ok that was funny

Radiation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462145)

... will kill anyone who tries this in a few years. It would not be pleasant for the poor sucker.

Re:Radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463571)

And everyone knows people die in the vacuum of space!

...I'm sure shielding will be amongst the things considered before the mission is undertaken.

Risk Aversion (5, Insightful)

Entropy98 (1340659) | about a year ago | (#44462175)

I think our society has become too risk averse. Not only are many people more terrified of 1 in a million occurrences like terrorism and serial killers than truly dangerous activities like driving, many want the government to prevent others from engaging in risky behavior even when they only risk harm to themselves.

Case in point, I'm pretty sure if this was attempted there would be considerable debate on whether someone should be allowed to volunteer for a suicide mission like this. Yet no one ever questioned the sanity of anyone wishing to fly on the space shuttle with it's 1 out of 67.5 chance per flight of killing you in a massive fireball..

Re:Risk Aversion (4, Interesting)

basecastula (2556196) | about a year ago | (#44462227)

I, for one, would be fine with laying my life on the line to explore Europa. Its has been my dream since I was like 8. It always seemed to be the coolest of the planets/moons in the solar system. Except for the whole, cannot escape the water thing. However, do they want monkeys, or skilled individuals? This would make a big difference. Guess I will have to RTFA....good one, I know.

Re:Risk Aversion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462441)

It's a one way trip. I think they'd prefer that you not be a skilled individual.

You know, I'll bet that if they advertised this as a one way trip to a prebuilt colony on Europa, and only let people with IQ's below 85 get on the ship(s), they would make a ton of money. Of course, since there won't actually be a colony on Europa, they could just fly it into the sun.

But since there will be plenty of cognac, KFC, watermelons, purple drank, gee locks (and pictures of Zimmerman taped over the viewports), and bling on the spaceship(s), everyone will be happy.

Re:Risk Aversion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462551)

Perfect place to send those career politicians with 4 years contract terms out there.

Re:Risk Aversion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462597)

Can you repeat that for me, but without the Ebonics (African-American Vernacular English)?

Thank you so much.

Re:Risk Aversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463499)

Yo dawg, dese whack-ass punks that be holdin us down need to step off all the way to Jupiter, yo! You feel me?

Re:Risk Aversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44464979)

fer reals doe blud, u no wut i sayin?

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44463073)

This sounds like it is more than just risking your life. It is sacrificing your life for the chance to see Europa and to attempt a landing there.

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44465409)

Well, the only thing you can know with certainty is that you will die. A trip to Europa could be a hell of a way to go, what do you plan on buying with your death?

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463935)

I, for one, would be fine with laying my life on the line to explore Europa.

For some reason I saw "my wife" instead of "my life" when I first read this. I would also be fine with sending my wife on a one way trip to Europa!

Re:Risk Aversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465925)

I would also be fine with sending my wife on a one way trip to Europa!

She did always say she wanted a vacation on Europa... Or maybe I misheard her. Whatever...

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44462351)

I think part of what's happened is a deeper appreciation for life, and less acceptance of avoidable death which I think are altogether positive trends. That being said, you're either going to die on this planet or another one. It's not like the people staying behind are going to live forever.

Re:Risk Aversion (2)

Entropy98 (1340659) | about a year ago | (#44462589)

They're great trends unless you enjoy smoking, drinking, drugs, lawn darts, transfats, soda, raw milk, bloody steak, buckyballs, gambling... I'm sure I'm missing plenty...

Re:Risk Aversion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462673)

Ah, lawn darts... ...so much time, so few eye-balls. :)

Risk averse? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44462715)

If this was "going out with a slim chance of coming home". That's one thing.

This is "You AIN'T coming back!"

People who don't volunteer for this aren't "risk averse". They're simply proving they have higher brain function in the form of reason.

Re:Risk averse? (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44463065)

Is it worth dying to be the first human ever to "walk" on a Jovian moon or really anywhere other than the moon? Maybe enough consumables could be brought to survive for at least a few years and really explore the place and send back images. And maybe there could be another kickstarter for a new mission to keep sending supplies every couple of years or something.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44463457)

The problem is that somebody will realize at some point that there's more money to be made from a reality TV show called "Watch Astronauts Die", and then they'll stop sending food.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44463645)

Is it worth dying to be the first human ever to "walk" on a Jovian moon or really anywhere other than the moon?

In one word: NO!

We can send unmanned probes to do exploration and science experiments.

We send people when we have a chance to safely return them.

Sending them out on a suicide mission "For Science!" is a reeking crock of shit.

At least be honest about what it is. One long snuff film.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44465453)

Why do *YOU* get to decide what *MY* life is worth?

You will die, that is non-negotiable no matter what you do - go to Europa or stay on Earth. Live healthy, or eat nothing but McDonald's happy meals. Nothing you do will prevent you from dying. Meanwhile the history of the human race is full of those who died attempting the impossible, and quite a few who managed to succeed and changed the worlds perception of what was possible.

The only question is what will your death be worth? Is a chance to set foot where no human has ever been before and see things never before seen by eye of man worth less than wasting away as a senile husk in a hospital bed somewhere waiting for terminal organ failure? Maybe for you it is, but nobody has the authority to make that decision for someone else.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44467589)

Well, if you're hell-bent on committing public suicide, be my guest.
You're not helping anything, even the population issues.

Pardon me if I find this sort of exhibitionism ghoulish in the extreme.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44469575)

Death isn't the point, just the price.

There has always been a percentage of the population willing to gamble their lives pushing the boundaries of human accomplishment, even pushing forward in the face of certain death, and our species is the better for it. Asking those people to quietly rot to death instead now that we've explored pretty much everything on the planet accessible to the non-scientist is a tenuous position to take.

Re:Risk averse? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44481035)

I'm sorry. But what, EXACTLY can we learn by shooting a frail, semi-autonomous bag of flesh and bone into space that we can't learn learn with a probe?

Etch "Killroy was here!" someplace?

Re:Risk Aversion (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year ago | (#44463473)

The problem is, the examples you quote are not examples of being risk averse, but poor risk management:

1. Not actually calculating the risk objectively - people who are afraid of terrorism and climate denialists fall into this category, as does being afraid of flying but not driving.

2. Poor projection of the risk versus reward. You can take greater risks if the reward is greater.

The second is where the 'canned ape' strategy of space exploration falls down. The proposed mission for instance, has 2 potential outcomes:

1. The risk is realised, and the mission fails, the crew dies. Result: we've gained nothing and lost our investment.

2. The risk is not realised, the crew dies on the surface of Europa. Result: exactly the same: we've gained nothing, and lost our investment.

From a risk-reward perspective, this proposal makes no sense, because success is exactly like failure.

Re:Risk Aversion (2)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44464007)

From a risk-reward perspective, this proposal makes no sense, because success is exactly like failure.

From a risk-reward perspective, human life makes no sense either :) Expanding the line of thinking from the 2nd half of your post, just a bit, leads us to believe that there's almost nothing that we can gain from any of human pursuits. It'd be very easy to construct a similar argument based on similarly sufficiently arbitrary notion of what is a gain. In other words, the "argument" is just a logical fallacy, although it escapes me at the moment which one [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] .

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

narcc (412956) | about a year ago | (#44464295)

It should be required that anyone claiming a "logical fallacy" must formalize the argument, and from that show how the alleged fallacy applies and what impact the error has on the conclusion(s), if any.

In other words, the "argument" is just a logical fallacy, although it escapes me at the moment which one

Perhaps it's because you're relying on an absurd poster from a website which caters to the lower-end of the "I don't need a formal education" faction of the skeptical movement rather than a textbook?

The scare-quotes you've placed around the word "argument" are curious. Can I safely assume that you're a member of the aforementioned group to which the poster from your link was designed to appeal?

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44465049)

Sometimes we're just lazy. Human, even :)

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about a year ago | (#44477151)

Hilbert would be pissed if we started sending I/Q and stopped using his transform in SDRs.

Re:Risk Aversion (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44466221)

The risk is not realised, the crew dies on the surface of Europa. Result: exactly the same: we've gained nothing, and lost our investment.

This is yet another example of poor projection of the risk versus reward. We gain a considerable amount both in technology development and a concrete accomplishment, putting someone on the surface of Europa. To even have an honest discussion of this sort of thing, you have to acknowledge that something can have value to others even if it doesn't to you.

Re: Risk Aversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468153)

What, are you purposely leaving out:

1. The first person to live on another planet and all of the research that would go into making that technology possible.
2. The potential to discover and study extraterrestrial life.

Seems to me that a bunch of you have a phobia of death which is interfering with your ability to see the immense reward of setting up an outpost on another planet.

Suicide for Science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462197)

Soooo awesome. I was thinking about this a lot this year, a one-way trip to Europa, suicide for science.

So... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462339)

They can't even figure out how to survive a single day on Europa without dying (due to the radiation), and they want us to just give them money. Also, how much will it cost to give these astronauts enough food, water, and materials to survive on, not only for the 600 day ONE WAY trip, for the rest of the time they are going to spend there?

This is going to cost a ridiculous amount of money, and the project itself is ridiculous because the project hasn't even been fully thought out beyond what's going to happen beyond Day 1 of landing on Europa. Hell, there might not even be a Day 2.

Only a fucking fool would invest in this.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44464375)

1 - there are numerous classic ways to survive such radiation. Of course we know how this can be done.
2 - its very unfortunate that the article has failed its title by mentioning "crowd-funding" there is no crowd-funding to this project. Only crowd-researched...
Kristian von Bengtson

What's the Daenishmarkian word for 'scam'? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462353)

Everything this guy does stinks of scam to me. He proposes truly massive ventures backed by what appears to be a very lightweight team, and always pulls out the 'one way trip' card as an 'aha!' to wave away questions about cost or feasibility. (eg: "you may ask why NASA says this would cost 100x as much and take decades.. that's because they don't plan on a one way trip!").

Funding at trip to Mars by selling TV coverage? Now, before that's even started to progress, announcing plans for a trip to Europa?!

If he was serious, then he would be sending fools to a quick death. As it is the only thing I think is happening is he is lining his pockets with the money of the gullible.

Re:What's the Daenishmarkian word for 'scam'? (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about a year ago | (#44463061)

Funding at trip to Mars by selling TV coverage? Now, before that's even started to progress, announcing plans for a trip to Europa?!

Not the same guy.

Re:What's the Daenishmarkian word for 'scam'? (1)

ThreeKelvin (2024342) | about a year ago | (#44465647)

Exactly.

Kristan Von Bengtson is the co-founder of Copenhagen Suborbitals [copenhagen...bitals.com] , an amateure rocket group, that as its first goal are going to send a man 100 km up. Though they admittedly are a delightfully whacky, there's no scam.

See e.g. their launch of a guided rocket [youtube.com] , test of their liquid engine [youtube.com] (which went CATO during the test) or one of the many other videos available.

Re:What's the Daenishmarkian word for 'scam'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44464383)

You are mistaken..
Mars-One is a dutch project by Bas Landsdorf...

First steps? (2)

schallee (183644) | about a year ago | (#44462355)

It would seem to me that getting to Mars (or even the Moon) might be a better objective first.

Re:First steps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44462981)

It would seem to me that getting to Mars (or even the Moon) might be a better objective first.

Or maybe even, as their name suggests, a suborbitals mission.

As far as I know, they haven't had a single successful mission yet.

Re:First steps? (1)

ThreeKelvin (2024342) | about a year ago | (#44465915)

They haven't had an unsuccessful one either. They're an amateure rocket group, that are working towards launching a person on a suborbital trajectory and that takes quite a bit of time, man power and money. They've come a remarkably long way since they started a couple of years ago, given their budget.

What it must have been like (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#44462391)

When the oceans were being conquered with ships set to explore and no guarantee of returning.

It's exciting to hear about but sobering to think about the tens of thousands who left, never returned and were forgotten 20 years later.

I wonder if we'll see the same happen over the next century.

Re:What it must have been like (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#44462645)

There is a difference between no guarantee of returning, and there is no possibility of you returning. Even those heading out to new colonies had a future to look forward to with opportunities well beyond the ones they were leaving behind.

With something like this, the only guarantee is that this guy is trying to get money from the gullible. It will go nowhere.

It's raining men, Hallelujah! (3, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44463259)

[What it must have been like w]hen the oceans were being conquered with ships set to explore and no guarantee of returning.

But we'll be killed!
Nonsense. Simmons, what do you suppose the edge of the world looks like?
Uh, a great cliff... Oh, in the ocean, right. So, a giant waterfall off the edge?

Precisely. All the water pouring from the ocean for hundreds of years... Then why isn't the ocean dry?
...Rain! Rain must be filling it back up.

Obviously. Now, by what mechanism would water reach into the sky to first fall?
Ah... uhm... A bucket? No...
Fool, think! What moves water in the air?!
Oh, Wind!

Truly, it does. What moves ships upon the water?
Sails!
...
Wind!

Indeed. So, there is nothing to fear, you see?
With a firm mast and steady sail, if the edge be reached then just like rain we shall follow our jibs into the skies!
If you're lucky we may even wave good day to St. Peter, or meet the maker Himself!

So, we'll be Dead?!
Quite. Now fetch me an sturdy umbrella just in case. Columbus has volunteered to go first.

Radiation makes Europa a bad target (1)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about a year ago | (#44462501)

The radiation belts around Jupiter make that whole system a bad target for human exploration unless they can come up with some kind of personal electromagnetic shielding that can protect someone on the surface. I think, if and when shielding equipment like that becomes available, it will be for vehicles only as it will likely require a pretty decent power supply.

A more feasible mission would be to a moon around Saturn, where the radiation is not so out of the ordinary.

Re:Radiation makes Europa a bad target (1)

alanw (1822) | about a year ago | (#44463747)

sorry - slip of the cheap crappy touchpad - tried to mod informative, modded down instead. posting here will undo

They would be dead within a week. (3, Interesting)

echostorm (865318) | about a year ago | (#44462643)

The radiation level at the surface of Europa is equivalent to a dose of about 5400mSv (540 rem) per day, an amount of radiation that would cause severe illness or death in human beings exposed for a single day.

Re:They would be dead within a week. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463579)

I'm fairly sure the proposal isn't for this mission to be attempted naked.

Re:They would be dead within a week. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463957)

The radiation level at the surface of Europa is equivalent to a dose of about 5400mSv (540 rem) per day, an amount of radiation that would cause severe illness or death in human beings exposed for a single day.

I'm fairly sure the proposal isn't for this mission to be attempted naked.

They would probably receive more publicity and money if it were though!

Re:They would be dead within a week. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463973)

proper shielding weights a lot... we don't have Star Trek type Shields

1st line of agreement to let them leave (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44462647)

"All your monoliths are belong to US"

One way mission? WTF? (0)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44462697)

Seriously?

Who the fuck is dumb enough to envision a suicide run to Jupiter?

And, more telling, who the fuck is dumb enough to actually GO on one of these suicide runs?

Not quite sure where people's heads are at on this one.

If people die in the scientific endeavor of space exploration by ACCIDENT or misadventure? It happens. It's tragic.

But going out there knowing you're going to die, "FOR SCIENCE! [girlgeniusonline.com] "?
GET YOUR FUCKING HEAD CHECKED!

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44462899)

Forget about Europa, crashing into Jupiter proper would be an awesome and fun suicide. How does the cloud cover looks like when seen firsthand, just above it then inside it? Are you better off after crossing the radiation belts (radiation wise) and how far/how long can you survive exactly.

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44463651)

Awesome? Maybe awesomely stupid.

Fun? Suicide? See a shrink. SOON.

Basically, from dropping unmanned probes into Jupiter, we already know that you just keep going down and down and down until the pressure crushes you.
If you want that, we can drop you into the Mariana Trench in a cut-rate submersible.

If you're LUCKY, such a death would be quick.
If not, it could be indescribably painful for the few seconds/minutes you have left.

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44464017)

Of course the things you value in life must apply to everyone, by edict, or else! Who the fuck are you to tell others how to live their lives, and how to set up their values?

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44464097)

Don't take that so seriously, or feel free to do so, I was just exploring a "what if?" and I think the idea is dumb anyway, whether it's a suicide mission or not. I believe that mild fascination in the context of a totally unrealistic and unreachable scenario is harmless. Remember that tale where a girl gets eaten by a talking wolf? It's even a cultural thing.

You never thought about silly things like which execution method would you prefer?, I would totally not do electric chair, gas chamber or injection but I'd be curious to know how hanging or guillotine feels like. Never read stories about crashes in the newspaper, or whatever? If you didn't resist your curiosity to read the news you must be mad I guess.

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44465611)

You never thought about silly things like which execution method would you prefer?

Two girls, old age, and a wild night.

Anything else and you're not even trying.

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

Herder Of Code (2989779) | about a year ago | (#44463775)

I guess it's a question of perspective. I'm not saying I would do it but I can understand why someone would volunteer. It's like this: Everyone who had some kind of modern education knows the name of the first man who walked on the moon. It's a chance to be something like that again, to make history. Heck people might remember you as that crazy dude who had the most expensive suicide in the history of humanity but they still would remember your name and you would be a footnote in history for a while. I'm pretty sure some people would go for that.

Re:One way mission? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44467927)

I guess it's a question of perspective. I'm not saying I would do it but I can understand why someone would volunteer.

It's like this: Everyone who had some kind of modern education knows the name of the first man who walked on the moon. It's a chance to be something like that again, to make history. Heck people might remember you as that crazy dude who had the most expensive suicide in the history of humanity but they still would remember your name and you would be a footnote in history for a while. I'm pretty sure some people would go for that.

Why the F would it matter if everyone knows your name if you are dead?

Re:One way mission? WTF? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44464015)

All life ends in death. We're already born with our fucking heads in need of a check, according to you :)

Isn't Europa full of methane or something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44463539)

Sounds like it would be a real blast going there with current technology....

Re:Isn't Europa full of methane or something? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44464021)

That's good, it means you'd only need to bring oxidizer with you for the surface mission - no need for fuel.

Latest info (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44464459)

http://www.objective-europa.com/info/

Crowd-researched, not -funded (1)

SessionExpired (642030) | about a year ago | (#44465099)

Preliminary site is up [objective-europa.com] , I quote:

Despite what you may have read on the Internet or in the press, THIS IS NOT A CROWD-FUNDING PROJECT.

Why not a robotic probe? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#44465249)

You know I'd rather just send a robot. Because we've never actually done that before.

The enterprise of landing a rover on Europa - which is a literal one-way journey - is still something NASA isn't entirely sure about how to do effectively. And in that case we don't need to land food, oxygen and other life-support gear. And once you get there, we'd like to do something useful - but there's kilometers of ice we need to get through first.

I'm all for high-stakes missions to Mars, but that's extending our reach in a way which is achievable and would advance our technology and enthusiasm. When we can't do Mars even if we wanted to just yet, Europa is just lunacy.

message from Discovery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44467097)

ALL THESE WORLDS
  ARE YOURS EXCEPT
  EUROPA
  ATTEMPT NO
  LANDING THERE

This is a joke right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468219)

1. I mean shit we haven't even been back to our own moon in half a fucking century even though it's only 384,400 km.
2. We haven't even been able to send a single fucking person to Mars let alone anyone to the outer reaches.

And yet people are reaching for the stars... I think it's time to get back to Earth and face the facts.

I find all these type articles that popup from time to time quite laughable considering all the facts in hand. Am I a hater? By no measure. However, I for one am a realist, I'm not sure about those other people though. Mars might be visited within 10-20 years, provided that everything stabilizes on Earth first, after all the economic BS that date may be pushed in around the 20+ years. Humans visiting any of Jupiter's moons would be realistically possible, after we've put a person on Mars, within 30-40 years (+/- 5-10 years).

Cutting through the BS, humans may be able to visit Jupiter's moons... but that would be around 2070 or 2080 or 2100 at the furthest point.

I'm not sure why these crowd funding sources like MarsOne and this new Jupiter moon thing aren't considered scams because that's what they are. They are collecting money through merchandise and donations in turn providing false hope to people's dreams.

I'll be honest, I'm extremely pissed off and I always get pissed off the moment I see these types of articles and the reason why is they keep jiggling the false hope in front of your face and you keep getting suckered into it not realising humanity has just not reached the point of space faring civilization, and according to recent news, we won't be able to reach that point until the year 2500-3000 at our current progress.

Re:This is a joke right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469085)

The headline is wrong, this project isn't asking for crowd sourcing. They don't want your money, so by definition there is no scam.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...