●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
43821863
story
Posted
by
Soulskill
arch 05, 2013 @08:01PM
from the new-life-and-new-civilizations dept.
tetrahedrassface writes "Observations of spectral emissions from the surface of Europa using state of the art ground based telescopes here on Earth have lent data that indicate the surface of the Jovian moon is linked with the vast ocean below. The observations carried out by Caltech's Mike Brown and JPL's Kevin Hand show that water is making it from the ocean below all the way up to the surface of the moon. In their study (PDF) they noticed a dip in the emission bands around lower latitudes of the moon, and quickly honed in on what they were seeing. The mineral of interest is epsomite, a magnesium sulfate compound that can only come from the ocean below. From the article: 'Magnesium should not be on the surface of Europa unless it's coming from the ocean,' Brown says. 'So that means ocean water gets onto the surface, and stuff on the surface presumably gets into the ocean water.' Not only does this mean the ocean and surface are dynamically interacting, but it also means that there may be more energy in the ocean than previously thought. Another finding is that the ocean below the icy surface of Europa is basically very similar to an ocean on Earth, giving the neglected and premier solar body for life past Earth another compelling reason for being explored."
You may like to read:
Gnome Founder Miguel de Icaza Moves To Mac
Programming Immune Cells To Treat Disease
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byhb253 ( 764272 ) writes:
"lent data"???
"honed in"????
byUngrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) writes:
"lent data"??? "honed in"????
Not sure what's up with "lent data". (Typo of "sent data"? Odd translation of an idiom from a non-English language?)
I've heard the "honed in" misusage a lot. It seems to be a Mondegreen> from "homed in" (like a homing pigeon.) [wikipedia.org]
byOl Biscuitbarrel ( 1859702 ) writes:
The Europans are fasting and observing penitence.
byicebike ( 68054 ) writes:
"lent data"??? "honed in"????
Not sure what's up with "lent data". (Typo of "sent data"? Odd translation of an idiom from a non-English language?)
I've heard the "honed in" misusage a lot. It seems to be a Mondegreen> from "homed in" (like a homing pigeon.) [wikipedia.org]
Lent is the past tense of lend. Data from one discovery was lent to a totally different theory.
Honed in is fairly common usage when working toward a goal.
The so called "translation" is from a language called English, with which it appears you are only tangentially acquainted.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCimexus ( 1355033 ) writes:
"Honed in" may be in common usage but that doesn't make it correct.
One can hone a blade. In the same sense, one can hone their skills (in the sense of sharpening or improving them). However one cannot 'hone in' on something. It's a mishearing of "home in" (to zero in on/zoom in on/narrow a wider field down to) - a common one to be sure, but mistaken nonetheless.
Nothing wrong with 'lent' though, as you say.
bynegablade ( 2745981 ) writes:
'Hone' means to focus in or to work towards a specific goal, and is listed in reputable print dictionaries (i.e. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in [merriam-webster.com]). Honed in is the past tense of hone in. It is true that some people think it is wrong, and that opinion is open to debate, as it should be for any living language. But the deciding factor is whether the intent of the phase is understood by the majority of readers. Since it is in common use, it follows that it has become accepted phraseology.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCanEHdian ( 1098955 ) writes:
Origin of HONE IN
alteration of home in
First Known Use: 1965
So in the 2048 we will be able to look up "Interweb" as a fully accepted noun (but people will be too busy defending themselves against wave after wave of evil robots to care).
byCanEHdian ( 1098955 ) writes:
^ That should read "the 2048 edition"
byhb253 ( 764272 ) writes:
No, "hone" does not mean to focus. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else needs to follow.
I say "asswipe" now means "boss". You may proceed with my suggestion for evolution of the English language.
bywonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) writes:
"giving the neglected and premier solar body for life past Earth another compelling reason for being explored" was rather tortutous to parse as well.
byPress2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) * writes:
and a series of flybys began in the 1970s. Pioneer 10 and 11 visited Jupiter in 1973 and 1974 respectively.
Two Voyager probes traveled through the Jovian system in 1979 providing more detailed images of Europa's icy surface. The images caused many scientists to speculate about the possibility of a liquid ocean underneath.
Starting in 1995, the Galileo probe began a Jupiter orbiting mission that lasted for eight years, until 2003, and provided the most detailed examination of the Galilean moons to date. It included, Galileo Europa Mission and Galileo Millennium Mission, with numerous close flybys of Europa.
Neglected indeed.
Not.
(Paraphrased from Wikipedia)
twitter
facebook
bywar4peace ( 1628283 ) writes:
Depends what you compare with. Justin Bieber certainly gets more attention... an unfortunate thing, really.
byPress2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) * writes:
Almost certain he gets more probing as well.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytetrahedrassface ( 675645 ) writes:
It's very neglected compared to what we've sent to Mars isn't it? Now we are floating *another* rover while the data for Europa continues to build up to the point that we really should go there in a two part mission. One would be a dedicated orbiter, and then a landing...
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land. Maybe the descent stage would be another 1000kg to get you from low orbit to the surface. Then that 2 tonne package has to be powered into the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Eurpoa. You are talking about a lot of fuel. Galileo just barely went into an elliptical orbit. In energy terms that is a long way from a landing. My rough guess is that the total mass of the vehicle would be 10 tonnes in low earth orbit. Maybe more.
Maybe it could only be done with a proper fission reactor and ion drives.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytetrahedrassface ( 675645 ) writes:
Right, well the Planetary Society has proposed the JEO, Jupiter Europa Orbiter. That would be a great start to actually close enough to really see what's going on. Then we don't need or even have to land a super heavy rover on Europa. If we took data from the JEO and were smart about it, we could land a few very small probes to sample the surface of the ice where the upwellings occur.
We have the capability to go there today, if we really wanted to. I guess it's just not politically expedient to go there,
bysmellotron ( 1039250 ) writes:
We have the capability to go there today, if we really wanted to.
I can't think about exploring Europa without getting that tingly sensation that I am being watched [wikipedia.org]:
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
. . EUROPA
. ATTEMPT NO
.LANDING THERE
byicebike ( 68054 ) writes:
The problem is that a Eurpoa rover would need to be powered by an RTG, which means you have to send a vehicle about the size of curiosity. So thats 1000kg that you have to land.
Meh! Details....
The day before Curiosity landed the general opinion here among the Slashdot Rocket Scientists that it had ZERO chance for success. Too complicated. Too Rube Goldberg. Parachutes, Rockets, and Skycranes! Such foolishness. Stupid arrogant NASA/JPL about to get their comeuppance.
Well...
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
Yeah but in energy terms a landing on Europa is much harder because there is no atmosphere.
byicebike ( 68054 ) writes:
Bring more with you sir. You will need it.
byZeromous ( 668365 ) writes:
Europa has a slight oxygen atmosphere. It may be relatively lightweight as far as atmosphere, but let's be precise and say, Europa actually has one.
byGameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) writes:
We've found life! WE'VE FOUND ALIEN LIFE! Look at those dead bastards...
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
Heh. What I like about the MSL pessimism is that most people didn't realize that literally the only new parts of the landing procedure were the sky crane at the end, and aerodynamic flight before parachute deploy.
It's like they think Spirit and Opportunity were just dropping onto Mars from orbit and some measely air bags absorbed all that energy.
But that's how Mission to Mars showed it, so I guess that's legit!
byZeussy ( 868062 ) writes:
The Aerodynamic flight wasn't all that new. That was based on what the Apollo command module did on reentry.
The sky crane engines were based off the ones that landed the Viking landers.
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
Yeah, even some of the new parts weren't that new, though doing aerodynamic flight in Mars atmosphere counts as fairly new if not unprecedented.
The Viking's last stage of descent was done entirely with retrorockets on the lander itself. The MER rovers used a rocket powered descent stage that then dropped the rovers in their airbag-lined shells only the last 10s of meters. MSL was closer to the MER rovers in this sense, however the Sky Crane part was still completely new.
bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:
Spirit and Opportunity were dropped from their "sky cranes" (yes, they had them too, but they weren't called sky cranes at the time) from several storeys up, and had to endure double digit G-forces as they bounced and rolled across the Martian surface. Spirit bounced 28 times and rolled nearly half a kilometer from its initial impact point before coming to a rest. Yes. If anything, Curiosity had it easy. It was placed ever so gently on the surface.
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
Spirit and Opportunity were dropped from their "sky cranes" (yes, they had them too, but they weren't called sky cranes at the time) from several storeys up,
They had a rocket-powered descent stage, but it wasn't a "sky crane" because it didn't lower them on a cable, ala a crane, thus why it wasn't called one.
Yes. If anything, Curiosity had it easy. It was placed ever so gently on the surface.
Easier on the rover by design/necessity, though more complicated for the EDL team. Not ridiculously so like everyone thought, but definitely a source of complication and stress.
I didn't realize it when I was watching the EDL stream live, but later learned that they had agreed that, largely due to the public watching, they had to be careful how they called
bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:
They had a rocket-powered descent stage, but it wasn't a "sky crane" because it didn't lower them on a cable...
They most certainly were lowered on a cable [youtu.be].
bykwerle ( 39371 ) writes:
Except that Europa has slightly less gravity than our moon - more than 1/3 of mars. So I have to imagine it has no atmosphere to speak of. I would imagine that would make a Europa landing much more like a moon landing than the Mars landing. Of course Jupiter's gravity well is something to contend with - but at least you don't have to land there - just in the neighborhood. All in all, I imagine that a Europa landing would be easier than a Mars landing (assuming the surface is friendly, etc).
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
No atmosphere so no parachutes. Its a powered descent, unless you want to try lithobraking. In the future that may be an option. Consider landing a sled on smooth ice at 2 km/s.
byElectricity Likes Me ( 1098643 ) writes:
Probably not that unreasonable if we had decent surface maps - which is really why we need an orbiter.
bykwerle ( 39371 ) writes:
With no atmosphere and such a great distance from the sun - and given that there is geological activity making its way to the surface, I have to imagine the surface is anything but smooth. I mean - that recipe is basically volcanic with no atmosphere to weather down the resulting mountains and debris.
I doubt lithobraking is an option.
byZeussy ( 868062 ) writes:
I can remember reading an article about how landing on mars was a bitch compared to the moon or earth. Earth has a descent amount of atmosphere, so you can rely on aero braking then parachute. On the moon you have no atmosphere so you can fire rocket engines in the direction your flying, and do a powered descent.
Mars has the problem of so little atmosphere that aero braking barely slows you down to a speed where you can open a parachute and not have it ripped apart as you are still travelling at superson
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
Maybe.
bymooingyak ( 720677 ) writes:
So thats 1000kg...
Nobody ever says Megagram, or Megameter either for that matter. I for one would like to see that become commonplace.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
So thats 1000kg...
Nobody ever says Megagram, or Megameter either for that matter. I for one would like to see that become commonplace.
I wouldn't count on that happening in the next couple of gigaseconds.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
Robotin parts that assemble themselves. So you land smaller parts.
remember, we are talking about an organization that dropped a small car sized vehicle on mars using thrusters and a skyhook... autonomously.
NASA isn't perfect, but if they said they where going to do X, I would put my money with them...unless X is get more money from congress.
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
You can aerobrake with Jupiter to get you into a descent path for the moon using almost no fuel
You are understating the difficulty. Aerobraking will leave you in a highly elliptical orbit with a significant velocity difference to Eurpoa where it crosses the orbit of Europa. It might be possible to circularise that orbit with slingshots among the moons, but that would take years. Also there is a significant hazard from meteors going so close to Jupiter, and an extreme radiation hazard.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
oh boo-hoo, its hard. Good. We need to do hard things.
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
Does Galileo and its aerobraking maneuvers around Jupiter mean anything to you?
Galileo did no aerobraking. Rockets only.
you encounter the moon at the end of your ellipse and let its gravity pull you in
The required precision seems almost impossible to achieve. Some of the mars probes used aerobraking to circularise their orbits but they crept up on the appropriate depth to use over many orbits. Aerobraking was not used to immediately stop at a moon. The deep gravitational field of Jupiter means that even small errors in position will be too great to be corrected with rockets.
byGavagai80 ( 1275204 ) writes:
Nobody has been able to drill 15km into Earth yet, so the technology to get that far into Europa is unfortunately far off.
byj1m+5n0w ( 749199 ) writes:
Given that this thread mentioned using an RTG (a Radioisotope Thermal Generator, which is just an electrical generator that operates off of waste heat produced by a radioactive material decaying), it seems like the solution here is pretty obvious, even if it might be a painfully slow.
byElectricity Likes Me ( 1098643 ) writes:
We navigate through the asteroid belt every time we go to Mars. The asteroid belt is a not a dense field of rock. The chances of a probe running into an asteroid are estimated at being 1 in a billion.
byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:
It doesn't matter how well you do in your endeavours if we continuously push 'Chance of life' as a way to get the general public interested. How many times do you think the public can hear about 'Nope, nothing there' when the original headline was 'Amazing new possible discovery that will rock the foundations of the space program". Don't get me wrong, I find the concept of alien geology to be very interesting and love these stories, but please cut back on the 'hints/signs/rumor/promise of life' in headlines.
Before anyone responds with "But we have to make it interesting for the unwashed masses...", I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.
twitter
facebook
byGrayhand ( 2610049 ) writes:
Why the assumption there is no life? There are strong signs on Mars that date bad to the Viking missions. Odds are any current life is subterranian but the conditions for life definitely existed in the early days of Mars. Europa has possible conditions now so long as there's an energy source it seems to have liquid water. Several other moons also have the potential so don't write off life so quick. Why is this important? If it happened twice in this same system then the odds of life outside of this system g
byfustakrakich ( 1673220 ) writes:
But wait! There's more! We'll throw in this miniature monolith absolutely free to the first 3,000 customers!
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
I'm going to preempt that with the fact that you don't want space exploration to be relegated to the same 'Overhype/Overpromise' location in the collective consciousness currently reserved for late night infomercials and miracle health products.
why not?
Of course their only influence would be getting politician to focus on in more, but I'll set that aside.
bynarcc ( 412956 ) writes:
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there." -- A. C. Clarke
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
It just occured to be that some parts of Europa are so flat that a vehicle in the form of a sled may be able to slide to a stop from orbital velocity.
bygmhowell ( 26755 ) writes:
Came for the 2001 reference. Left satisfied (Eventually. I mean, WTF, mentioning both 'Discovery' and 'Europa' in the title, and a 2001 reference wasn't the frost piss?)
bynarcc ( 412956 ) writes:
I know! I posted this as the obvious 2010 references were conspicuously absent.
(I should have waited as all it did was earn me a "redundant" mod! I suppose I could have replied out-of-context to the first post to push my comment closer to the top of the page -- that seems to be a popular strategy.)
Oh, Slashdot!
byGrayhand ( 2610049 ) writes:
Just spread the rumor that Europan whales make the best sushi in the Universe and the Japanese will launch a mission to Europa within the year. As an added bonus Iceland would start a space program.
twitter
facebook
byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:
Liquid oxygen and kerosene is a reasonably common propellant, I wonder if anybody has worked out the piping challenges of getting your(totally steampunk) liquid oxygen and whale oil rocket off the ground?
bySpinalcold ( 955025 ) writes:
that or Spock and Kirk will come back in time to save them.
bykawabago ( 551139 ) writes:
And you've sentenced them to extinction by sushi?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
And you've sentenced them to extinction by sushi?
When they're approaching they'll get a message reading:
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
THEY ARE NOT FOR SUSHI
byCoward Anonymous ( 110649 ) writes:
Where do I contribute to Japan's space program? Sign me up!
byAnonymous Coward writes:
All these worlds
Are yours except
Europa
Attempt no
Landing there
byNidi62 ( 1525137 ) writes:
Burma Shave
bye065c8515d206cb0e190 ( 1785896 ) writes:
I was totally going to post that.
byBill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) writes:
I disagree. Its always funny, insightful and thought provoking. Arthur C Clarke was one of the best writers of the 20th century. We could stand to quote him more often. This is slashdot. Trust me, nothing here is any more insightful than that.
byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:
It's things like Europa and robots on Mars that make me want to punch the 'Cry, cry, we need to put a man back on the moon, because something!' crowd.
Was the Apollo program a heroic piece of engineering? No question. But does the moon have any major virtues aside from being close enough to man-in-a-can with relatively primitive life support gear? It's a hostile, sterile rock with not a whisper of atmosphere(and conveniently close and well-lit for the telescope crew). We have basically no reason to suspect that it has, or ever had, anything approaching life. Mars is a practically shirtsleeves environment by comparison, and Europa is under serious suspicion of having some serious organic chemistry going down under the ice. What sort of grainy, sepia-toned nostalgia wankfest would have us putzing around the moon, again, when there is other cool stuff to poke at?
twitter
facebook
byKozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) writes:
Short term, I agree completely. In the longer term, it may make sense to mine and refine minerals into construction materials for space vehicles on the moon. The smaller gravity well and lack of atmosphere may make it much cheaper to get construction materials into space from the moon rather than from Earth. Railgun launch into lunar orbit is an old idea.
byJeremi ( 14640 ) writes:
Well, if nothing else, the moon would make a good location for a moon base. ;) If there was a practical way to mine rocket fuel on the moon, I think that could be a good refuelling/re-launching point for rockets bound for other parts of the solar system.
Also, I understand that the far side of the moon would be a good location for telescopes that want to minimize EM pollution from Earth.
bydywolf ( 2673597 ) writes:
there's plenty of other reasons to be on the moon. for one, a permanent settlement in a hollowed out moon makes for a perfect space dock / manufacturing facility, simplifying a lot of the engineering in building such a thing in space, and with a lot smaller gravity well to escape from. it makes a perfect stepping stone.
byElectricity Likes Me ( 1098643 ) writes:
More importantly, the real issue for people is trying to get some long-term corporate/government buy-in to space exploration. If there were strategic or material interests in space, then the cost of doing anything there would plummet. It's why people are so excited by the asteroid mining enterprises - resources aside, if we can make space actively profitable then science and exploration there is going to get very well-funded.
byrossdee ( 243626 ) writes:
You can't really take that channel seriously anymore - its full of stuff like Mythbusters, Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, , Dual Survival, Cash Cab etc
Great entertainment but not real science.
bycyberchondriac ( 456626 ) writes:
That's not even great entertainment. It's mostly realityTV suckage.
byMegahard ( 1053072 ) writes:
If the guy who admits killing Pluto [amazon.com] finds life on another object.
byMal-2 ( 675116 ) writes:
The odds of finding life within (not ON) Europa are exactly the same as they were before. The conditions either are or are not conducive to life, whether we were aware of them or not. That life either does or does not exist, whether we were aware of it or not. (The place could be habitable, but uninhabited, so the two statements are not the same.)
What has changed is our belief of just what those odds ARE. The residents of Europa, should they exist, are completely unaffected by this news... at least until we
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
Nope.
Gambling odds it the reference they are using; which is correct becasue when you talk about the odds in this scenerio we are using that in a risk/reward matrix to determine is the odds are high enough that their is life for us to undertake the rick of going their.
Too swap it around, from the residents of Europe(if any), the odd we will go their just went up..again.
Sometime words mean different things.
byGrizzley9 ( 1407005 ) writes:
The mineral of interest is epsomite, a magnesium sulfate compound that can only come from the ocean below.
So the great discovery on Europa are bath salts. Well I guess we do face an aging population, perhaps this will get a good push from all the AARP crowd so they can soak comfortably.
byMichaelSmith ( 789609 ) writes:
Or maybe just cracks in the ice caused by tidal changes. Then water down below would sublimate. rise to the surface. and freeze. Maybe the vapour would carry some metals with it. Magnesium is a good construction material BTW.
byMystakaphoros ( 2664209 ) writes:
Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
byicebike ( 68054 ) writes:
Tidal forces seem like a good culprit, considering the extreme gravitational forces involved.
Which is interesting because enough gravitational heating of the moon's core to keep an ocean liquid suggests the possibility of life even in the absence of sunlight, just as is found in some deep oceans on earth. I suppose its possible for there to be enough infrared near thermal vents, but by and large, you would expect any putative life to have evolved completely without any form of photoreceptors, let alone eyes.
Some clever minds are probably already at work conceptualizing payload packages to investig
bym0n0RAIL ( 920043 ) writes:
An under-ice rover isn't likely in the near future, as estimates of the ice thickness range from 30km to at least a few kilometers.
byVernonNemitz ( 581327 ) writes:
Please recall this article about "panspermia" [journalofcosmology.com]. It means that we are practically certain to find Earth-originated life-forms down there in the ocean of Europa. If life originated there independently of Earth, there might not be any evidence of it left!
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Actually, I have a distinct recollection of how some Nasa engineer had a probe design in mind that would work. It would melt itself through several kilometers of ice in a few months and leave a cable behind connecting it to a transmitter on the surface. I don't think it's too hard for engineers that are capable of constructing such a probe to stick a couple of propellers on it for diving. Although, I don't know about appropriate precautions to prevent it from ending up as an appetizer for some Europian supe
byinvid ( 163714 ) writes:
If there is life in the ocean under the ice and if there are interactions with the surface then it could be possible to find evidence of life from the chemical composition of the surface ice in selected areas. We should send an orbiting probe to determine the most likely spots and then send a lander.
While I would love for NASA to send a submarine, just trying to imagine the engineering effort makes my head spin. It's possible but would cost tens of billions and the chances for failure for something that co
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
Why couldn't we figure out a way to use one of the crack that is spewing water out?
bydurrr ( 1316311 ) writes:
Various impact objects could be candidates too.
byPenguinisto ( 415985 ) writes:
Sadly, so did I, thinking that they finally left Leeds and discovered the existence of Amsterdam.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byrubycodez ( 864176 ) writes:
I was more disturbed by the mention of "lent data" from ground based telescopes, which sounds like certain kinds of data collection were given up until Easter.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byOl Biscuitbarrel ( 1859702 ) writes:
If you Discover life somewhere aren't the odds pretty much infinite?
bydarkHanzz ( 2579493 ) writes:
no, they are 1.
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
So, there's life. But Europa's economy is shot to hell.
bydaem0n1x ( 748565 ) writes:
At first glance I read the title as "Discovery Increases Odds of Life In Europe".
There's life here, but won't be for long.
byOpenSourced ( 323149 ) writes:
Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life.
byRaceProUK ( 1137575 ) writes:
Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life. Intelligence yet to be confirmed.
FTFY
byCanEHdian ( 1098955 ) writes:
Reporting from Europe. Can confirm life. Intelligence yet to be confirmed.
FTFY
Life and intelligence were confirmed July 4th, 2012 [slashdot.org]
byquenda ( 644621 ) writes:
I thought they'd brought the Space Shuttle orbiter out of retirement. Maybe crash it down there with a lot of seeds.
byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:
I'd be willing to bet that the addition of mass roughly the size of Europa might also be the solution to that problem as well.
byUngrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) writes:
Europa is too far away. We should just send it on a crash course for mars. By the time it gets there we will have found a way to thicken up the atmosphere a bit so the water doesn't evaporate right away.
Do you plan to do the pushing?
No kidding on "by the time it gets there". It will take a LOT of pushing to get it up out of Jupiter's orbit and then downhill to an impact orbit with Mars.
After that Mars will be too hot for life for a long time.
Meanwhile, if there is life on Europa OR Mars, you've just create
bygmuslera ( 3436 ) writes:
Streetlight effect [wikipedia.org] anyone? Leaving it for later don't mean that then we will be able to do it, we could be in the same situation as today or worse.
bygmuslera ( 3436 ) writes:
Even unicellular life will make a difference. Still most people things that Earth is the center of the univese, and that the rest is just background to make the sky less boring at night.
byphysburn ( 1095481 ) writes:
It would be extermely interesting biochemically, would probably be made up of different organic compound than earth life.
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
No. we don't know enough to say if that is probable or not.
bycrossb0nez ( 1078925 ) writes:
My God! It's full of Starfish!!!
bysFurbo ( 1361249 ) writes:
That depends on whether you interpret "odds" in a frequentistic or a Bayesian context.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
356 commentsIn a Last-Minute Decision, White House Decides Not To Terminate NASA Employees
●
317 commentsCDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
●
306 commentsUS Formally Withdraws From WHO
●
303 commentsElon Musk Urges Deorbiting the International Space Station 'As Soon as Possible'
●
302 commentsAmerica's NIH Scientists Have a Cancer Breakthrough. Layoffs are Delaying It.
Programming Immune Cells To Treat Disease
Gnome Founder Miguel de Icaza Moves To Mac
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Programming Immune Cells To Treat Disease
32comments
Gnome Founder Miguel de Icaza Moves To Mac
815 comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...