3 ms·

Instead of trying to pierce that, would it be a good strategy to send a radioactive weigh that will melt the ice over a decade? Ok, that's how to get in, but n

Instead of trying to pierce that, would it be a good strategy to send a radioactive weigh that will melt the ice over a decade? Ok, that's how to get in, but not really how to get a data out :)

ComputerGuru 6y ago
I like this idea! As it would take quite a while to melt its way down, you'd basically have to sink the entire rover or a submodule down with the radioactive heat source (not melting a hole then exploring it). If it's a one-way, single-purpose trip then it's not clear to me that the ice would necessarily pose any sort of issue with non-line-of-sight (aka radio) communications. Water in and of itself isn't a great communications barrier, but the conductivity of sea/salt water causes it to act like a Faraday cage and kills/significantly dampens any radio waves attempting to pass through it. Under the assumption that Europa's oceans are in fact salty, the frozen sea ice isn't actually all that salty. Ice in general isn't a good conductor as it's actually almost entirely the pure water that freezes leaving the salt behind (I'm not clear on whether it would precipitate but remain suspended between the the H2O molecules or if - given the lower density of Ice I - the water would freeze from the top down leaving the liquid seawater beneath it ever so slightly saltier while forming a layer of pure frozen ice on the top). In all cases, keeping a base station while sinking a second module with the radioactive heat source then proxying all communication via the base station would be possible even if the ice did form some form of a Faraday cage that severely limited communication from beneath.
- hderms 6y ago
  Maybe leaving a series of repeaters in a vertical line downwards would allow the information to make it to the surface where we could achieve LoS with an Earth satellite. I'm guessing taking 16 miles of some kind of cable is less realistic. In any case it seems like there'd be astronomical expenses and many moving parts
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    That was my initial thought but my point is that it actually shouldn’t be necessary. 16 miles of non-conductive water should be fine for a single point-to-point em transmission at low bitrates.
SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
> radioactive weigh that will melt the ice over a decade? I've thought about this as well. I think there are "Prime Directive" type concerns with this approach though.
zepearl 6y ago
Wouldn't that have a huge impact on the ecosystem of the moon? (if it has an ecosystem) Thinking that soon or later (after 1/10/100/1000) years the probe will for any reason release its radioactive payload into that environment, therefore contaminating it. (kind of similar as well if it keeps generating warmth at least partially for years and years and years => maybe in that case bacteria might start to increase/evolve because of that warmth, and any later observation would have to take that effect into account, which might be difficult to separate from all the local&natural causes - or it could be as well the opposite, with the probe "burning"/killing existing bacteria because they're not used to that warmth)

Instead of trying to pierce that, would it be a good strategy to send a radioactive weigh that will melt the ice over a decade? Ok, that's how to get in, but not really how to get a data out :)

ComputerGuru 6y ago

I like this idea! As it would take quite a while to melt its way down, you'd basically have to sink the entire rover or a submodule down with the radioactive heat source (not melting a hole then exploring it). If it's a one-way, single-purpose trip then it's not clear to me that the ice would necessarily pose any sort of issue with non-line-of-sight (aka radio) communications. Water in and of itself isn't a great communications barrier, but the conductivity of sea/salt water causes it to act like a Faraday cage and kills/significantly dampens any radio waves attempting to pass through it. Under the assumption that Europa's oceans are in fact salty, the frozen sea ice isn't actually all that salty. Ice in general isn't a good conductor as it's actually almost entirely the pure water that freezes leaving the salt behind (I'm not clear on whether it would precipitate but remain suspended between the the H2O molecules or if - given the lower density of Ice I - the water would freeze from the top down leaving the liquid seawater beneath it ever so slightly saltier while forming a layer of pure frozen ice on the top). In all cases, keeping a base station while sinking a second module with the radioactive heat source then proxying all communication via the base station would be possible even if the ice did form some form of a Faraday cage that severely limited communication from beneath.

hderms 6y ago
Maybe leaving a series of repeaters in a vertical line downwards would allow the information to make it to the surface where we could achieve LoS with an Earth satellite. I'm guessing taking 16 miles of some kind of cable is less realistic. In any case it seems like there'd be astronomical expenses and many moving parts
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  That was my initial thought but my point is that it actually shouldn’t be necessary. 16 miles of non-conductive water should be fine for a single point-to-point em transmission at low bitrates.

SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago

> radioactive weigh that will melt the ice over a decade? I've thought about this as well. I think there are "Prime Directive" type concerns with this approach though.

zepearl 6y ago

Wouldn't that have a huge impact on the ecosystem of the moon? (if it has an ecosystem) Thinking that soon or later (after 1/10/100/1000) years the probe will for any reason release its radioactive payload into that environment, therefore contaminating it. (kind of similar as well if it keeps generating warmth at least partially for years and years and years => maybe in that case bacteria might start to increase/evolve because of that warmth, and any later observation would have to take that effect into account, which might be difficult to separate from all the local&natural causes - or it could be as well the opposite, with the probe "burning"/killing existing bacteria because they're not used to that warmth)