Given the extra mass it would take for the lander (which will need rad hardening), plus the fuel to deorbit it (since you say you want to release after you've orbited a while) plus probably another RTG on the lander, plus the technology development for the various things you want it to do that we don't know how to do yet -- we know the surface of Mars much better and Phoenix wasn't entirely a success -- than congrats, with a lander you probably quadruple the cost of the mission at a minimum!
I'd love to send a lander, too, but from the perspective of the scientists and managers makind decisions, sending a lander to Europa in the 2020s probably would mean shutting down all other planetary missions entirely for the next decade. Is that the tradeoff you want?
You want a $5 billion/year increase in planetary science money? I'd love that too, and would take it in a hearbeat over some other "stimulus" items. But within plausible budget limits I think NASA has made a reasonable choice.
Space/Science » in reply to No lander is just plain stupid
No lander is just plain affordable
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Next Flagship: Europa
- Water Worlds Roughly To Scale
- outer mission planets ideal for nano technology advances
- Bookmark this thread.
- Glass Half Full
- Europa is the next logical step