Feed aggregator

A 10-minute walk can build up enough static electricity to power a battery-free water purifier, which could be especially helpful during disasters or in regions that lack access to clean water and stable power supplies

A 10-minute walk can build up enough static electricity to power a battery-free water purifier, which could be especially helpful during disasters or in regions that lack access to clean water and stable power supplies

Video: 00:07:30

On the last day of his Huginn mission, ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen takes us on a tour of the place he called home for 6 months: the International Space Station. From the beautiful views of Cupola to the kitchen in Node 1 filled with food and friends and all the way to the science of Columbus, the Space Station is the work and living place for astronauts as they help push science forward. 

The deadly virus was practically eliminated in the U.S., but now it’s infecting more people.

The DJI Avata 2 offers an incredibly tantalizing FPV experience that can be as simple or as complicated to fly as you require.

Not long after the last world war, the historian William L. Shirer had this to say about the next world war. It “will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquers and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.” As an investigative journalist, I write about war, weapons, national security and government secrets. I’ve previously written six books about US military and intelligence programmes – at the CIA, The Pentagon, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency– all designed to prevent, or deter, nuclear world war III. In the course of my work, countless people in the upper echelons of US government have told me, proudly, that they’ve dedicated their lives to making sure the US never has a nuclear war. But what if it did? “Every capability in the [Department of Defense] is underpinned by the fact that strategic deterrence will hold,” US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is responsible for nuclear deterrence, insists publicly. Until the autumn of 2022, this promise was pinned on STRATCOM’s public Twitter feed. But to a private audience at Sandia National Laboratories later that same year, STRATCOM’s Thomas Bussiere, admitted the existential danger inherent to deterrence. “Everything unravels itself if those things are not true.” If deterrence fails – what exactly would that unravelling look like? To write Nuclear War: A scenario, I put this question to scores of former nuclear command and control authorities. To the military and civilian experts who’ve built the weapon systems, been privy to the response plans and been responsible for advising the US president on nuclear counterstrike decisions should they have to be made. What I learned terrified me. Here are just a few of the shocking truths about nuclear war. The US maintains a nuclear launch policy called Launch on Warning. This means that if a military satellite indicates the nation is under nuclear attack and a second early-warning radar confirms that information, the president launches nuclear missiles in response. Former secretary of defense William Perry told me: “Once we are warned of a nuclear attack, we prepare to launch. This is policy. We do not wait.” The US president has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. He asks permission of no one. Not the secretary of defense, not the chairman of the joint chief of staff, not the US Congress. “The authority is inherent in his role as commander in chief,” the Congressional Research Service confirms. The president “does not need the concurrence of either his [or her] military advisors or the US Congress to order the launch of nuclear weapons”. When the president learns he must respond to a nuclear attack, he has just 6 minutes to do so. Six minutes is an irrational amount of time to “decide whether to release Armageddon”, President Ronald Reagan lamented in his memoirs. “Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope… How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?” And yet, the president must respond. This is because it takes roughly just 30 minutes for an intercontinental ballistic missile to get from a launch pad in Russia, North Korea or China to any city in the US, and vice versa. Nuclear-armed submarines can cut that launch-to-target time to 10 minutes, or less. Today, there are nine nuclear- powers, with a combined total of more than 12,500 nuclear weapons ready to be used. The US and Russia each have some 1700 nuclear weapons deployed – weapons that can be launched in seconds or minutes after their respective president gives the command. This is what Shirer meant when he said: “Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it.” Nuclear war is the only scenario other than an asteroid strike that could end civilisation in a matter of hours. The soot from burning cities and forests will blot out the sun and cause nuclear winter. Agriculture will fail. Some 5 billion people will die. In the words of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, “the survivors will envy the dead”. I wrote Nuclear War: A scenario to demonstrate – in appalling, minute-by-minute detail – just how horrifying a nuclear war would be. “Humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,” UN secretary-general António Guterres warned the world in 2022. “This is madness. We must reverse course.” How true. Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen, published by Torva (£20.00), is available now. It is the latest pick for the New Scientist Book Club: sign up here to read along with our members

Not long after the last world war, the historian William L. Shirer had this to say about the next world war. It “will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquers and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.” As an investigative journalist, I write about war, weapons, national security and government secrets. I’ve previously written six books about US military and intelligence programmes – at the CIA, The Pentagon, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency– all designed to prevent, or deter, nuclear world war III. In the course of my work, countless people in the upper echelons of US government have told me, proudly, that they’ve dedicated their lives to making sure the US never has a nuclear war. But what if it did? “Every capability in the [Department of Defense] is underpinned by the fact that strategic deterrence will hold,” US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which is responsible for nuclear deterrence, insists publicly. Until the autumn of 2022, this promise was pinned on STRATCOM’s public Twitter feed. But to a private audience at Sandia National Laboratories later that same year, STRATCOM’s Thomas Bussiere, admitted the existential danger inherent to deterrence. “Everything unravels itself if those things are not true.” If deterrence fails – what exactly would that unravelling look like? To write Nuclear War: A scenario, I put this question to scores of former nuclear command and control authorities. To the military and civilian experts who’ve built the weapon systems, been privy to the response plans and been responsible for advising the US president on nuclear counterstrike decisions should they have to be made. What I learned terrified me. Here are just a few of the shocking truths about nuclear war. The US maintains a nuclear launch policy called Launch on Warning. This means that if a military satellite indicates the nation is under nuclear attack and a second early-warning radar confirms that information, the president launches nuclear missiles in response. Former secretary of defense William Perry told me: “Once we are warned of a nuclear attack, we prepare to launch. This is policy. We do not wait.” The US president has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. He asks permission of no one. Not the secretary of defense, not the chairman of the joint chief of staff, not the US Congress. “The authority is inherent in his role as commander in chief,” the Congressional Research Service confirms. The president “does not need the concurrence of either his [or her] military advisors or the US Congress to order the launch of nuclear weapons”. When the president learns he must respond to a nuclear attack, he has just 6 minutes to do so. Six minutes is an irrational amount of time to “decide whether to release Armageddon”, President Ronald Reagan lamented in his memoirs. “Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope… How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?” And yet, the president must respond. This is because it takes roughly just 30 minutes for an intercontinental ballistic missile to get from a launch pad in Russia, North Korea or China to any city in the US, and vice versa. Nuclear-armed submarines can cut that launch-to-target time to 10 minutes, or less. Today, there are nine nuclear- powers, with a combined total of more than 12,500 nuclear weapons ready to be used. The US and Russia each have some 1700 nuclear weapons deployed – weapons that can be launched in seconds or minutes after their respective president gives the command. This is what Shirer meant when he said: “Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it.” Nuclear war is the only scenario other than an asteroid strike that could end civilisation in a matter of hours. The soot from burning cities and forests will blot out the sun and cause nuclear winter. Agriculture will fail. Some 5 billion people will die. In the words of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, “the survivors will envy the dead”. I wrote Nuclear War: A scenario to demonstrate – in appalling, minute-by-minute detail – just how horrifying a nuclear war would be. “Humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,” UN secretary-general António Guterres warned the world in 2022. “This is madness. We must reverse course.” How true. Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen, published by Torva (£20.00), is available now. It is the latest pick for the New Scientist Book Club: sign up here to read along with our members

In this terrifying extract from Annie Jacobsen’s Nuclear War: A Scenario, the author lays out what would happen in the first seconds after a nuclear missile hits the Pentagon

In this terrifying extract from Annie Jacobsen’s Nuclear War: A Scenario, the author lays out what would happen in the first seconds after a nuclear missile hits the Pentagon

Astronomers have discovered that the BOAT, the most powerful gamma-ray burst ever detected, came from the supernova death of a massive star 2.4 million light-years away.

Jupiter is easy to spot, shining low in the west at nightfall. Near it are Uranus and Comet Pons-Brooks, tougher catches that require binoculars or a wide-field telescope — and some finding skills.

The post This Week's Sky at a Glance, April 12 – 21 appeared first on Sky & Telescope.

Suit up and get ready to launch on your own amazingly realistic Moon mission! Available now in Fortnite, Lunar Horizons is a vividly immersive experience set on the Moon during a future international mission. Released on 11 April 2024, the game was created by Epic Games, ESA and Hassell, in collaboration with Buendea and Team PWR.

Image: This Copernicus Sentinel-2 image shows the delta of the Ebro River on the northeast coast of Spain.

The Martian moons Phobos and Deimos are oddballs. While other Solar System moons are round, Mars’ moons are misshapen and lumpy like potatoes. They’re more like asteroids or other small bodies than moons.

Because of their odd shapes and unusual compositions, scientists are still puzzling over their origins.

Two main hypotheses attempt to explain Phobos and Deimos. One says they’re captured asteroids, and the other says they are debris from an ancient impactor that collided with Mars. Earth’s moon was likely formed by an ancient collision when a planetesimal slammed into Earth, so there’s precedent for the impact hypothesis. There’s also precedent for the captured object scenario because scientists think some other Solar System moons, like Neptune’s moon Triton, are captured objects.

Phobos and Deimos have lots in common with carbonaceous C-type asteroids. They’re the most plentiful type of asteroid in the Solar System, making up about 75% of the asteroid population. The moons’ compositions and albedos support the captured asteroid theory. But their orbits are circular and close to Mars’ equator. Captured objects should have much more eccentric orbits.

This illustration shows Phobos and Deimos’ orbits along with the orbits of spacecraft at Mars. The moons’ near-circular orbits don’t support the captured asteroid theory. Image Credit: By NASA/JPL-Caltech – http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA19396.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39982795

The moons are less dense than silicate, the most abundant material in Mars’ crust. That fact works against the impact theory. A powerful impact would’ve blasted material from Mars into space, forming a disk of material rotating around the planet. Phobos and Deimos would’ve formed from that material. If they result from an ancient planetesimal impact, they should contain more Martian silica.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell. The captured asteroid theory can explain the moons’ observed physical characteristics but not their orbits. The impact theory can explain their orbits but not their compositions.

Phobos and Deimos look like potatoes more than moons. Image Credit: Left: By NASA / JPL-Caltech / University of Arizona – http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10368, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5191977. Right: By NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona – http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/gallery/press/20090309a.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6213773

In research presented at the 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, three researchers proposed a different origin story for Phobos and Deimos. They suggest that an impactor is responsible for creating the moons, but the impactor was icy.

The research is titled “THE ICY ORIGINS OF THE MARTIAN MOONS.” The first author is Courteney Monchinski from the Earth-Life Science Institute at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

If a rocky impactor slammed into Mars, it would’ve created a massive debris disk around the planet. Previous researchers have examined the idea using simulations and found that an impact could’ve created the moons. But the disk created by the impact would’ve been far more massive than Phobos and Deimos combined. The simulations showed that there would’ve been a third, much more massive moon created within Phobos’ orbit that would’ve fallen back down to Mars. But there’s no strong evidence of something that massive striking Mars.

This illustration shows how a giant impact could’ve created Phobos and Deimos. The collision would’ve created a massive debris disk where a third more massive moon formed before falling back to Mars. Image Credit: Antony Trinh / Royal Observatory of Belgium

Other impact studies used basaltic impactors. But those showed that the temperature in the debris disk would’ve been so high it would’ve melted the disk material and destroyed ancient chondritic materials. Since the pair of moons appear to contain those materials, a basaltic impactor is ruled out.

According to the research presented at the conference, an icy impactor can explain Phobos and Deimos’ origins. There are three reasons for that.

The extra disk mass created by a rocky impactor would not be present. Instead, much of the mass in the impactor would’ve been vapourized on impact and escaped the system rather than persisting in the disk and being taken up by the formation of moons. There would’ve been no large third moon and no need to explain how it fell back to Mars.

The second reason concerns the composition of the moons. With abundant water ice in the collision, the temperature in the debris disk would’ve been lower. That would’ve preserved the carbonaceous materials in Phobos and Deimos today. It also can help explain their density and possible porosity. An icy impactor could’ve also delivered water to Mars, and we know Mars was wetter in its past.

The third reason concerns Deimos’ orbit. It’s not synchronous with Mars, and an icy impactor can explain that. With more water ice in the disk, there would’ve been a viscous interaction between the disk’s dust and vapour that extended the disk, allowing Deimos to occupy its orbit.

The researchers used Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) simulations to test the icy impactor idea. They simulated giant impactors with varying quantities of water ice and watched as disks formed around Mars and moons formed in the disk.

They first found that an impactor with any amount of water ice produced a more massive debris disk. It could be because an impactor containing water ice would be larger, though less massive, than one without any ice. That allowed more material to spray from the planet into the disk. It could also be because the water ice absorbs some of the impact energy when it vapourizes. That would cool the disk temperature, lowering the velocities of particles in the disk and making them less likely to escape.

This figure from the research shows that any amount of ice in an impactor increases the size of the debris disk. Image Credit: Monchinski et al. 2024. LPSC

Varying the ice content in the impactor also affected the makeup of the disk. Different amounts of ice lead to disks with different amounts of Martian rock and impactor rock in the disk.

This graph from the study shows impactor ice content (x-axis) affects the debris disk composition. Image Credit: Monchinski et al. 2024. LPSC

The temperature in the disk is a critical part of this. Different amounts of water ice in the impactor change the disk temperature and what types of materials in the disk would melt. Impactors with more than 30% ice create disk temperatures too low to melt silicates. Perhaps more tellingly, impactors with more than 70% ice result in a disk temperature too low to alter or destroy chondritic material, which both Phobos and Deimos are expected to contain.

According to the researchers, an icy impactor can also explain other features. “The existence of water in the impact-generated disk also suggests that water may condense, accounting for the possible water-ice content of the moons,” they write.

Ultimately, the researchers say an icy impactor with 70% to 90% water ice mantles can explain the pair of moons.

“The best case for reproducing the moons’ proposed compositions are the 70% and 90% water-ice mantle impactor cases, as they allow for low disk temperatures and more chances for chondritic materials to survive,” they explain.

Unfortunately, that may not be realistic. “In our current solar system, an object with around 70% or 90% water-ice content is not exactly realistic, as the object with the highest amount of water content in our current solar system, Ganymede, is only about 50% water,” they write.

The ESA’s Mars Express orbiter captured this image of Phobos over the Martian landscape in this image taken in November 2010. Irregularly shaped and only 27 km long, Phobos is actually much darker (due to its carbon-rich surface) than is apparent in this contrast-enhanced view. Image Credit: ESA / DLR / G. neukum

But could things have been different in the past? Samples from asteroid Ryugu suggest that its parent body could’ve been up to 90% water. That number is based on the types of minerals in Ryugu. But unfortunately, scientists don’t now for sure. Ryugu’s parent body could have contained as little as 20% water.

But it’s at least plausible that early in the Solar System’s life, an impactor with 70% water ice could have existed. If so, then the icy impactor scenario could be a robust theory to explain the origins of Phobos and Deimos.

“This impactor would have come from the outer solar system around the time of giant planet instability,” the authors write. During that time, outer Solar System bodies were perturbed and sent flying into the inner Solar System. But in this case, the impact’s timing needs to be constrained by Phobos’ and Deimos’ formation ages.

Scientists need more evidence to deepen their understanding of Mars and its moons. Japan’s Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission will provide that. MMX’s mission is to return a sample of Phobos to Earth. The goal is to determine if it is a captured asteroid or the result of an impact.

Unfortunately, JAXA just delayed MMX’s launch. It was scheduled to launch in September 2024 but has been delayed until 2026. That means we won’t get samples until 2031 instead of 2029.

JAXA has completed successful sample return missions, so they have the expertise to bring a piece of Phobos back to Earth. If scientists can determine how Phobos and Deimos formed, it’ll be part of a much larger, detailed picture of how the Solar System formed.

It’ll be worth it if we have to wait a couple extra years.

The post Did An Ancient Icy Impactor Create the Martian Moons? appeared first on Universe Today.

Embryos seem to have a sensor that picks up when nutrients are scarce, prompting them to pause their development until resources become more abundant again

Embryos seem to have a sensor that picks up when nutrients are scarce, prompting them to pause their development until resources become more abundant again

I used to be an eclipse hater, and now I'm not. That's the story.

Achoo! Baby stars "sneeze" to rid themselves of excess energy during their formation process, astronomers using the ALMA telescope array have found.

Before the Orion spacecraft is stacked atop NASA’s powerful SLS (Space Launch System) rocket ahead of the Artemis II mission, engineers will put it through a series of rigorous tests to ensure it is ready for lunar flight. In preparation for testing, teams at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida have made significant upgrades to the altitude chamber where testing will occur.  

Several of the tests take place inside one of two altitude chambers in the high bay of the Neil A. Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building at Kennedy. These tests, which began on April 10, include checking out electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility, which demonstrate the capability of the spacecraft when subjected to internally and externally generated electromagnetic energy and verify that all systems perform as they would during the mission.  

To prepare for the tests, the west altitude chamber was upgraded to test the spacecraft in a vacuum environment that simulates an altitude of up to 250,000 feet. These upgrades re-activated altitude chamber testing capabilities for the Orion spacecraft at Kennedy. Previous vacuum testing on the Orion spacecraft for Artemis I took place at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Ohio. Teams also installed a 30-ton crane in the O&C to lift and lower the Orion crew and service module stack into the chamber, lift and lower the chamber’s lid, and move the spacecraft across the high bay.  

On April 4, 2024, a team lifts the Artemis II Orion spacecraft into a vacuum chamber inside the Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where it will undergo electromagnetic compatibility and interference testing.Photo credit: NASA/Amanda Stevenson

On Thursday, April 4, teams loaded the Artemis II spacecraft into the altitude chamber. This event marks the first time, since the Apollo testing, that a spacecraft designed for human exploration of space has entered the chamber for testing. After testing is complete, the spacecraft will return to the Final Assembly and Systems Testing, or FAST, cell in the O&C for further work. Later this summer, teams will lift Orion back into the altitude chamber to conduct a test that simulates as close as possible the conditions in the vacuum of deep space. 

Originally used to test environmental and life support systems on the lunar and command modules during the Apollo Program, the interior of each altitude chamber measures 33 feet in diameter and 44 feet high and was designed to simulate the vacuum equivalent of up to 200,000 feet in a deep space environment. Both chambers were rated for astronaut crews to operate flight systems during tests. 

View of the Altitude Chambers inside the Neil A. Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Photo Credit: ACI/Penny Rogo Bailes

After Apollo, the chambers were used for leak tests on pressurized modules delivered by the Shuttle program for the International Space Station. 

View of the Altitude Chambers inside the Neil A. Armstrong Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Photo Credit: ACI/Penny Rogo Bailes

Additional upgrades to the west chamber include a new oxygen deficiency monitoring system that provides real-time monitoring of the oxygen levels and a new airflow system. New LED lights replaced the previous lighting system, and equipment from the Apollo days was removed. A pressure control system was added to the chamber that provides precise control of pressure levels. Two new pumps remove the air from the chamber to create a vacuum. New guardrails and service platforms replaced the older platforms inside the chamber. 

A new control room overlooks the upgraded chamber. It contains several workstations and communication equipment. The chamber control and monitoring system was upgraded to handle operation of all the remotely controlled hardware and subsystems that make up the vacuum testing capability. 

“It was an amazing opportunity to lead a diverse and exceptional team to re-activate a capability for testing the NASA’s next generation spacecraft that will carry humans back to the Moon,” said Marie Reed, West Altitude Chamber Reactivation Project Manager. “The team of more than 70 aerospace professionals, included individuals from NASA, Lockheed Martin, Artic Slope Research Corps, Jacobs Engineering, and every discipline area imaginable. This project required long hours of dedication and exceptional coordination to enable the successful turn-around and activation in time for this Artemis II spacecraft testing.” 

Team leads from the west altitude chamber reactivation project are pictured in Artemis gear standing in front of the upgraded vacuum chamber inside the Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. The team for this project included more than 70 aerospace professionals who received a NASA Silver Group Achievement Award for their efforts. Pictured from left to right: Victor Allpiste (Power & Lighting Systems Electrical Lead) Raymond T. Francois (TQCM System Lead / Mechanical Engineer) Marie Reed (Project Manager), Alfredo Urbina (Controls / Electrical Systems Lead), and Tim Saunders (Mechanical Systems Lead)Photo credit: NASA

NASA’s Artemis II mission will carry four astronauts aboard the agency’s Orion spacecraft on an approximately 10-day test flight around the Moon and back to Earth, the first crewed flight under Artemis that will test Orion’s life support systems ahead of future missions. Under the Artemis campaign, NASA will return humanity to the lunar surface, this time sending humans to explore the lunar South Pole region.  

For time lapse footage of the Artemis II lift into the vacuum chamber visit: Artemis II Orion Vac Chamber Lift and Load Operations 

4 min read

Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater) Members of the media visited a clean room at JPL April 11 to get a close-up look at NASA’s Europa Clipper spacecraft and interview members of the mission team. The spacecraft is expected to launch in October 2024 on a six-year journey to the Jupiter system, where it will study the ice-encased moon Europa.NASA/JPL-Caltech

Excitement is mounting as the largest spacecraft NASA has ever built for a planetary mission gets readied for an October launch.

Engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California are running final tests and preparing the agency’s Europa Clipper spacecraft for the next leg of its journey: launching from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Europa Clipper, which will orbit Jupiter and focus on the planet’s ice-encased moon Europa, is expected to leave JPL later this spring. Its launch period opens on Oct. 10.

Members of the media put on “bunny suits” — outfits to protect the massive spacecraft from contamination — to see Europa Clipper up close in JPL’s historic Spacecraft Assembly Facility on Thursday, April 11. Project Manager Jordan Evans, Launch-to-Mars Mission Manager Tracy Drain, Project Staff Scientist Samuel Howell, and Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations Cable Harness Engineer Luis Aguila were on the clean room floor, while Deputy Project Manager Tim Larson, and Mission Designer Ricardo Restrepo were in the gallery above to explain the mission and its goals.

The viewing gallery above High Bay 1 in JPL’s historic Spacecraft Assembly Facility provided members of the media with a vantage point to observe the clean room where Europa Clipper was put together.NASA/JPL-Caltech Europa Clipper Science Communications Lead Cynthia Phillips explains the science of the mission to members of the media in von Kármán Auditorium at the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on April 11. A cutaway model showing the moon’s layers can be seen behind Phillips.NASA/JPL-Caltech

Planning of the mission began in 2013, and Europa Clipper was officially confirmed by NASA as a mission in 2019. The trip to Jupiter is expected to take about six years, with flybys of Mars and Earth. Reaching the gas giant in 2030, the spacecraft will orbit Jupiter while flying by Europa dozens of times, dipping as close as 16 miles (25 kilometers) from the moon’s surface to gather data with its powerful suite of science instruments. The information will help scientists learn about the ocean beneath the moon’s icy shell, map Europa’s surface composition and geology, and hunt for any potential plumes of water vapor that may be venting from the crust.

“After over a decade of hard work and problem-solving, we’re so proud to show the nearly complete Europa Clipper spacecraft to the world,” said Evans. “As critical components came in from institutions across the globe, it’s been exciting to see parts become a greater whole. We can’t wait to get this spacecraft to the Jupiter system.”

At the event, a cutaway model showing the moon’s layers and a globe of the moon helped journalists learn why Europa is such an interesting object of study. On hand with the details were Project Staff Scientist and Assistant Science Systems Engineer Kate Craft from the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, and, from JPL, Project Scientist Robert Pappalardo, Deputy Project Scientist Bonnie Buratti, and Science Communications Lead Cynthia Phillips.

Beyond Earth, Europa is considered one of the most promising potentially habitable environments in our solar system. While Europa Clipper is not a life-detection mission, its primary science goal is to determine whether there are places below the moon’s icy surface that could support life.

When the main part of the spacecraft arrives at Kennedy Space Center in a few months, engineers will finish preparing Europa Clipper for launch on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, attaching its giant solar arrays and carefully tucking the spacecraft inside the capsule that rides on top of the rocket. Then Europa Clipper will be ready to begin its space odyssey.

More About the Mission

Europa Clipper’s three main science objectives are to determine the thickness of the moon’s icy shell and its surface interactions with the ocean below, to investigate its composition, and to characterize its geology. The mission’s detailed exploration of Europa will help scientists better understand the astrobiological potential for habitable worlds beyond our planet.

Managed by Caltech in Pasadena, California, JPL leads the development of the Europa Clipper mission in partnership with the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. APL designed the main spacecraft body in collaboration with JPL and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The Planetary Missions Program Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, executes program management of the Europa Clipper mission.

Find more information about Europa here:

europa.nasa.gov

Europa Clipper Media Reel News Media Contacts

Jia-Rui Cook / Gretchen McCartney / Val Gratias
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-0724 / 818-393-6215 / 626-318-2141
jia-rui.c.cook@jpl.nasa.gov / gretchen.p.mccartney@jpl.nasa.gov / valerie.m.gratias@jpl.nasa.gov

Karen Fox / Charles Blue
NASA Headquarters
301-286-6284 / 202-802-5345
karen.c.fox@nasa.gov / charles.e.blue@nasa.gov

2024-040

Share

Details Last Updated Apr 12, 2024 Related Terms

• Europa Clipper
• Europa
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory
• The Solar System

Explore More 7 min read The April 8 Total Solar Eclipse: Through the Eyes of NASA

On April 8, 2024, the Moon’s shadow swept across North America, treating millions to a…

Article 2 days ago 3 min read Tech Today: Folding NASA Experience into an Origami Toolkit 

Math for designing lasers becomes artist’s key to creating complex crease patterns

Article 2 days ago 4 min read NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory Announces 3 Personnel Appointments Article 3 days ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics

Missions

Humans in Space

Climate Change

Solar System