Talk:Europa Jupiter System Mission – Laplace

U.S. lander?

Although the U.S. cryobot Europa lander is in study, I found nothing linking it to the "Europa Jupiter System Mission". Instead of deleting that section I rendered it "invisible" in case someone does find a reference. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware nothing I've seen in the NASA/ESA proposals so far indicates a lander of any kind is part of the plans at this stage, I suspect that's why the Russians have suggested one as part of their contribution. Here is the JPL mission page, note;

"The main science objectives supporting this goal are:

• Understand the formation of surface features, including sites of recent or current activity, and identify and characterize candidate sites for future in situ exploration."

Certainly the cryobot isn't referenced so its relation to this mission is tenuous thus far. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

JAXA's and Russian involvement

Is purely hypothetical with very low chance of realization. It is incorrect to lump all four flight systems together, under characterization of being "planned." JEO and JGO are confirmed by the Joint Jupiter Science Definition Team report of January 2009, with a clear time-table of operations (2020-2029). All preliminary planning is going ahead under the assumption that there will be no additional crafts. Let's not be overly optimistic and include any vague suggestion into this article. --Hatteras (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points. We need to maintain a critical perspective. Feel free to join the Jupiter Taskforce if you feel that further work is needed in this area.--  Novus  Orator  07:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Programme change

This and the other L-class ESA missions will need a rewrite due to recent events however just to be clear, this is ESA's position on the matter. Basically all missions are delayed while they are reformulated to become smaller ESA-only missions (e.g. IXO is now "Athena") and down-selection will now occur at a later date. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As it is, the article is quite unclear on its status. Is the mission delayed, cancelled or is it unlikely? If cancelled, delete the section on the "possible" Russian colaboration. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated because EJSM-Laplace isn't an official mission to cancel, it is made up of NASA's JEO programme and ESA's JGO which are coordinated but technically separate. Essentially America's planetary science decadal survey said JEO isn't going to be funded anytime soon as there are other priorities so ESA has decided to go it alone with its side as a smaller but mostly independent project. Still, it needs to be selected from two other ESA large missions in competition. So the EJSM-Laplace cooperation is effectively dead in its present form for now, though technically there's nothing stopping both agencies revisiting the idea later if ESA's new mission isn't selected.

I'm not sure what this has to do with deleting the reference to the proposed Russian collaboration? ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. What I meant is that if the mission is cancelled, then there cannot be collaborations because there is nothing to co-labor on. But you explained the situation fairly well, can you update the article accordingly? The mention on of Japanese and Russian colaboration has to be reported accurately and updated in the article so, if they propose(d) to join the EJSM and now they won't, make it clear. If they propose to join under the Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer instead, then make it clear. As it is, the article is quite confusing, mostly because it is written in the past tense . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese and Russian collaboration was proposed assuming both the European and American parts of EJSM-Laplace went ahead as planned. EJSM-Laplace may happen in the future in some form, just not anytime soon, so they are still relevant to the article. There is nothing stopping them joining up with ESA's Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter/Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer but there is no word on this yet and probably won't be until Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer gets selected. Technically past tense is probably best as EJSM-Laplace is essentially over for now, I'll see what I can do to improve the article to make all this clearer. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs a Controversy Section

The story about how Juno mission scientists and also Mars mission scientists pushed the Europa mission out of the way is quite a tale, and is an essential part of the topic, that would go well in a new "Controversy" section.

Some patient Internet research will find plenty on the topic. The Planetary Society (a nonprofit) is one good resource on this.

In short, there are plenty of scientists who are very unhappy that any kind of Europa lander mission has been pushed aside for so many years. Especially given that Europa has a 95% confirmed saltwater ocean, and is felt by many to be the number one destination for any search for extraterrestrial life.

Enceladus, another more recently confirmed-Lunar-Ocean exploration target, has also been repeatedly pushed back in favor of other entrenched and very aggressive science research interests.

Writeonandon (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a reliable source for this, can you provide one? Sounds like gossip, and i'm not sure it is particularly important to the article which is specifically about the international EJSM. EJSM was going fine til it ballooned in cost.

Any kind of Europa lander? What about the Russian proposal? Lack of global context methinks.

Anyway, with the ESA-led mission this article is outdated anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't gossip. I'll bring in sources next week.

There has been awareness of Europa's likely ocean since the late 90's. Yet Juno launched today, more than a decade later, and will totally ignore Europa's Ocean. We will spend billions studying Jovian clouds instead of Europas saltwater ocean, which will be right there where that probe is.

If Russia goes with the ESA, that'll be more than 15-20 years later than when we first knew Europa probably had an Ocean. And as you said, the ESA may not even do it.

Writeonandon (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the missions proposed to NASA must compete for funding/selection in each category. That is the way it goes. Juno will collect data on the solar system formation, Europa is unique. Having said that, yes Europa's oceans must be fascinating. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New name

The above discussion reminded me, the European-only mission has now been renamed JUICE (JUpiter ICy moon Explorer). [1] ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdated article

• February 2012: "NASA Flagship Planetary Missions on Hold Indefinitely" NASA Flagship Planetary Missions on Hold Indefinitely
• "NASA shelves ambitious — and expensive — flagship missions"...there are no plans to develop more planetary flagships beyond the $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory (MSL).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Europa Jupiter System Mission – Laplace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627022326/https://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/ to http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811022733/http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/europajupitersystemmissionejsm/ to http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/europajupitersystemmissionejsm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)