←back to thread

NASA's Europa Clipper Launch

(www.youtube.com)
217 points belter | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[14 Oct 24 17:18 UTC] No.41839623[source]▶
ETA is 2030. Originally planned for a rocket (SLS) which would have delivered the Clipper in ~3 yrs, but which was decided to be not viable for the Clipper (with some lobbying suspected).

How much science is delayed by the extra 2+ years? Looking at the 'project plan', is the Clipper's arrival (and delivery of data) on the critical path for research? And how much research?

I'm picturing a lot of scientists and research projects waiting an extra 2-3 years, and then all the research, follow-on missions, etc. also delayed. Essentially, the decision might shift everything in this field 2-3 years further away, and then centuries from now human habitation of other planets is 2-3 years later (ok, a bit exaggerated).

But seriously, maybe it's not on the critical path or doesn't impact that much. Is anyone here familiar with the research?

replies(8): >>41839754 #>>41839762 #>>41839879 #>>41839899 #>>41839911 #>>41840401 #>>41843379 #>>41852320 #
1. why_at ◴[14 Oct 24 17:46 UTC] No.41839911[source]▶
I don't have any special insider information, but from what I know about spaceflight I think we should be glad they used the Falcon Heavy instead of SLS.

SLS has been consistently delayed pretty much every year since its conception, most recently the Artemis 2 mission which was supposed to fly this year is now delayed to next. It has only flown one time, now two years ago. It's also an order of magnitude more expensive than the Falcon Heavy with each flight costing upwards of $2 billion.

My guess is if they had been stuck with SLS this mission would not get to Europa until significantly later, if at all.