Talk:Europa Clipper

Mission name

@Vesna Wylde: Hello. NASA's Europa mission is called Europa Clipper, and it can be referred to as the Europa mission just as the Apollo 11 was a "Moon mission". The name remains "Europa Clipper" in NASA's web site and there is no news release to the contrary. Why we don't see you arbitrarily renaming New Horizons mission as the Pluto Mission, or the Curiosity rover mission as the Mars Mission? Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Show me where, in recent sources, that the mission is referred to as Europa Clipper. The official JPL website had been renamed from Europa Clipper to Europa Mission, NASA definitely do not refer to it as Europa Clipper anymore, opting instead to describe it as "Mission to Europa" instead, and many old social media pages for the mission, including Twitter, have been renamed from Europa Clipper to Europa Mission. Recent press releases by NASA regarding the mission have failed to mention the Europa Clipper name, again, opting to call it Europa Mission or "Mission to Europa": 1 2 3 From what I can see, Europa Mission may be a tentative name of sorts; but one thing is clear: the Europa Clipper name is no longer used. Your claim that it is still referred to by NASA as Europa Clipper is not supported. A bit of research can go a long way. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 16:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So NASA describes the Europa Clipper as a "Mission to Europa" and YOU, unilaterally, decide to scrap the official name. Open the NASA web site and type Europa Clipper: [1] (Last Updated: 17 June 2015.) You have not showed that the Europa mission changed name. Again, the news media is hailing right now the "Pluto mission", so will you next change New Horizons article name to The Pluto Mission? BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have showed that the Europa Mission's name was changed through many sources from NASA and the JPL themselves. The website you linked was to the Solar System Exploration site, which honestly isn't as reliable and not well managed. Note how bringing up a on the Solar System Exploration website lists many cancelled missions and duplicate pages. Note how, when one searches for missions with titles beginning with the letter "E", there's both Europa Clipper, the one you linked to, and another one, the Europa Multiple Flyby Mission, which is actually an identical page for the same mission, but under a different name. Guess which one of the two is actually the main page for the mission? Indeed it is Europa Multiple Flyby Mission. It is listed as the future Jupiter mission on the site, NOT Europa Clipper. If anything, this proves that the mission now has another name: Europa Multiple Flyby Mission. Although, since the Solar System Exploration webiste isn't that relaible of a source, it needs to be corroborated by another source, in my honest opinion.

Also, more importantly, your persistence in suggesting that I would rename other articles erroneously is a personal attack. DO NOT make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. I definitely feel uncomfortable by your unnecessary aggression. In no way whatsoever did I rename the article for a purpose other than to correctly update the article. I gave you six different, recent and reliable sources from NASA and the JPL. There is simply no reason for you to claim that I didn't prove anything, and there is definitely no reason for you to start talking slack towards me. I hope this isn't how you normally act towards others in a discussion. Philip Terry Graham 17:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I you want poetry, listen to Neil Diamond. So the latest NASA update is unreliable to you, and after your very exhaustive and "honest" research you changed the name yet again to another description: "Europa Multiple Flyby Mission". If you can't use common sense, step back, please. I will not entertain any further your obtuse comments. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Dude, what on Earth are you even talking about? Were you even reading and understanding anything of what I wrote? The Solar System Exploration Website isn't "the latest NASA update", what I've been sourcing earlier were "the latest NASA update[s]". The mission is no longer refereed to as Europa Clipper. If you are less interested in further discussion and more interested in attacking me, I have no choice but to simply ignore you, since you won't provide any other proof that the mission is still being referred to as Europa Clipper. Again, I seriously hope this isn't how you normally act towards people in a discussion. Philip Terry Graham 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So the media [2] is unreliable, and NASA Solar System page is not NASA? This is what I am talking about, you are obtuse and looking to engage into a war edit. I think you are going to have to deal with this in a more appropriate venue. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said that it wasn't NASA, nor did you ever link that article beforehand. The article you posted is a reliable source, however, it's dated from March 2015, a few months before the Europa Mission was finalized for development in May 2015. It was around this time that NASA started dropping the Europa Clipper name. Again, there is no reason to call my actions "obtuse" and claiming that I am attempting to engage in an edit war. You simply need to calm down and think more about discussion of content more than blindly attacking me. Philip Terry Graham 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I want to jump into this, but I would like to understand the Wikipedia policy on references. At a NASA Outer Planets Assessment Group meeting, the program scientist (Curt Neiber) very clearly and specifically explained the change from ``Europa Clipper to ``Europa Multiple Flyby Mission. He said it was because the actual mission was not required to be exactly like the concept study called ``Clipper. Using the name ``Clipper could have caused confusion or questions about why EMFM was different from the Clipper concept. But, true to form, Neiber didn't put that in his viewgraphs (which are online and citable), it was just something he said while presenting them. Is there any appropriate way to clarify this in the article based on what I heard him say? I suspect not, but I thought I'd ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Conceived as Europa Clipper in 2013. [3] It went through numerous iterations of spacecraft configurations on its road to becoming an official NASA project in June of 2015. During this process it was given a neutral descriptive name (Multiple Flyby Mission). Once approved, its (original) name was recognized: Europa Clipper. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

SLS will not be ready

Ars Technica, Eric Berger - 4/16/2018, [4]: "Between the first test flight and second flight of the rocket, NASA intends to upgrade the SLS rocket’s upper stage to give it more kick in sending larger payloads deeper into the Solar System. This larger and longer upper stage, known as the “Exploration Upper Stage,” will necessitate significant changes to the mobile launcher. The agency estimated it would take 33 months to accomplish this work, creating a nearly three-year delay expected between the first and second flights of SLS. [...] Not only was this lengthy delay embarrassing for NASA, which wants desperately to show that the SLS can be a useful tool in its exploration plans, it was also bad news for the Clipper."

That link above also states "the administration says that we must launch on an EELV. We will not be able to use the SLS." No mention of the Atlas V. In short: the situation is fluid and the launcher is, as of now, undetermined. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fluid" is a good word for it. But the project itself, in things like presentations to the Outer Planets Assessment Group (OPAG) has consistently said they are baselining SLS with an Atlas V 551 as a backup option. The administration is telling NASA to do something different, and Congress (read Mr. Culberson) keeps telling them to use SLS and get there as soon as possible. While the people in Washington are arguing about it, I suggest we stick with the project's statements. Fcrary (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue of SLS (1 or 1B?), or Atlas V, or Falcon Heavy (+Star48) is widely discussed but this article does not at the moment make it obvious (its clearer in SLS and its sources) that NASA have been repeatedly mandated to use SLS, and that has not yet been rescinded. NASA have taken care (and spent time & money) to design EC so that it could survive the thermal conditions for gravity assists if it has to launch on a non-SLS. - Rod57 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Amended based on existing sources - better sources are in the SLS article.

Now EUS is delayed, SLS article says it will launch on 4th SLS block 1 (no EUS). Is that even possible ? or is that why the admin says it must launch on an EELV (per above) ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple unsourced edits by IP editor

Someone, 2001:18c0:61c:700:f051:2b2a:2e29:572, has just made a large number of unsourced changes to the launch date, launch vehicle, cost, and several other things. I'd rather not go back and forth on this too much, so could someone (like the editor in question) provide references to all those changes, or agree that we should change them back until a reference is available?

In two cases, I'm just going to correct the ones I'm sure are wrong. It's an ice shell not an icy one. "Icy" can mean rock with a bit of permafrost; "ice" conveys the fact that it's mostly or almost entirely ice. And I'm taking out the statement that University of Texas Austin is involved. To the extent that UT is involved, it would be the San Antonio campus through their joint program with SwRI. Fcrary (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A self-correction. I forgot the PI for the REASON instrument is at UT Austin. But it's being built at JPL, with some work at the University of Iowa. I think the phrasing of the lead confused me. What does instruments "contributed" by the listed institutions mean? They aren't paying for or donating them. Is it supposed to be the institutions building the hardware or the PI institutions or what? And some work is being done at co-I institutions. Is there a clearer way to phrase this? In any case, I'd rather keep it at UT, not UT Austin, because of the UTSA connection through SwRI.Fcrary (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Name of SUDA instrument?

The Europa Clipper's dust instrument is called "SUrface Dust Mass Analyzer (SUDA)" on the PI institution's web page. (http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/missions-projects/quick-facts-suda/) I think that's reasonably definitive. But the Wikipedia article on the instrument is just "SUrface Mass Analyzer" and someone's just edited this article (Europa Clipper) to match that? I think we should go with what the PI calls his own instrument and also rename the SUDA article. Fcrary (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Launch!

Successful launch from Kennedy Space Center at 12:06 PM EDT on Monday, 10/14/2024. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/liftoff-nasas-europa-clipper-sails-toward-ocean-moon-of-jupiter/ CounterEarth (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trajectory animations

I think the two side-by-side trajectory animations on solar-system vs. jupiter scale are a bit confusing as they are not in sync while as a reader you would expect them to be. Any objections to edit them into one video that has the two animations synced? --Jazzman (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

First animation (solar system) starts in 2024 and the second animation (jupiter orbit) starts in 2030, so should the second animation just start later? Ursaiod (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)