I just watched The Europa Report, a 2013 movie about a crewed space mission to look for life on Europa, the smallest of Jupiter’s Galilean satellites (the four moons of Jupiter found by Galileo in 1610). The movie was recommended by a friend, who was wondering if the science in the movie was accurate. This is my attempt to answer her question. To cut to the chase, I enjoyed the movie a lot, although there were a few problems with the science. They weren’t big ones, however. Spoilers follow, so be warned.
The movie is set five minutes into the future, after remote probing of Europa has revealed the possibility of under-surface life on Europa. It’s been known since the Voyager probes that the moon’s surface is principally water ice at a temperature ranging from 50 Kelvin (-223 C) to about 125 Kelvin (-150 C), at least according to Wikipedia. This is wayyyy too low for life as we know it, but cracks running through the surface indicate that there might be liquid water underneath the crust, raising the possibility that life might exist there. The presence of water became more probable when water vapor (probably caused by plumes of water breaking through the crust) were detected in December, 2013.
First, a bit of science: how can such an icy place have warmth enough for water underneath? In one word: tides. Really, tidal friction. As Europa orbits Jupiter, the massive gravitational attraction which Jupiter exerts on the planet stretches it in the direction of Jupiter, and squeezes it along the other two directions. This stretching and squeezing leads to heating of the moon as it orbits the planet. Europa is an icy ball – it’s covered by an “ocean’’ of ice which is probably several hundreds of kilometers thick, and a water ocean underneath that, with a relatively small rocky core. Therefore, it seems that one of the conditions for life (liquid water) exists on the planet.
This has been a staple of science fiction stories since its discovery in the late 1970’s. The first novel I know of which featured Europan life was 2010: Odyssey 2 by Arthur C. Clarke, the sequel to the 1966 novel and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the novel, the mysterious aliens responsible for the Monolith turn Jupiter into a star to allow the Europans to develop beyond their primitive life forms and become a technologically advanced species. The Europa Report owes a great deal to 2001 and its sequel: it has a very similar look and feel to 2001, and of course it is based on a mission to find life on Europa. In a conscious homage to the older movie, NASA plays Johann Strauss, Jr.’s “Blue Danube” waltz as the mission is starting, in reference to the space station docking scene from 2001.
The movie is very different from 2001, however, although the sound track is nearly as good (very high praise from me…) It is a “found footage” movie (although in this case, “sent footage” is more accurate.) It concerned a crewed mission to Europa, sent there because the plumes of water and other evidence indicate the possibility of life. The movie includes Neal deGrasse Tyson discussing how he wants to go ice fishing on Europa (I think it’s real footage), and some pretty accurate discussion of the motivation and science of the expedition.
The first point to make is that the movie science is very good, by Hollywood standards. It’s one of the most accutate I’ve seen in a while. I’m going to nitpick about the science, but my readers should keep this overall point in mind. Let’s start with the space travel:
First off, it takes the spaceship 22 months to reach Jupiter and its moon system. Why 22 months? Probably because that’s how long it took the Voyager spacecraft to reach Jupiter from Earth. I don’t know this for a fact, but my suspicion is that the writers and director just used values from a handy mission which already went there instead of trying to do the rather difficult job of estimating the mission time.
It’s not a crazy estimate. Jupiter has an average distance of 5.2 AU from the sun (5.2 times the average distance of Earth from the sun). The spacecraft won’t travel on a straight line from Earth, so it’s hard to say exactly how far the spacecraft will have to travel. However, if we assume something like 5 AU total distance, the average speed is about 14 kilometers per second (very roughly 30,000 mph). This isn’t crazy, but there will be difficulties with doing this.
The ship flies by the moon and Mars while en route, so it’s reasonable to assume that the ship was using a gravitational assist speed boost from both bodies. Again, not a crazy idea, but only very detailed calculations would show if that’s feasible or not. Unfortunately, the movie never mentioned if that was part of the plan. One issue which I had with the movie was tha the cast seemed remarkably blasé when passing Mars. Also, if you’re going to pass it, why not drop off a probe while you’re doing so, or at least spend some mission time getting data? The crew doesn’t seem to have too much else to do.
One concern of a crewed mission is that of coming home. For that, you will need fuel to return home at the end of the mission. To estimate the amount of fuel you need, you have to calculate what are called “Delta v” costs for the rocket – more or less the changes in rocket speed needed to go to Jupiter, maneuver in the system, and return home. The rocket equation is unforgiving: for chemical fuels, every “delta V” change of about 4 to 5 kilometers per second requires a multiplicative factor of about three in rocket fuel mass to payload mass. (The exact value depends a bit on the type of rocket fuel). Getting the ship away from the gravitational attraction of the Earth and into an orbit headed for the outer solar system is far and away the most difficult problem – it requires a “delta v” change of some 13 kilometers per second, including the effects of air drag. We can probably assume another six or seven for getting to Jupiter, maneuvering and return, even with any hypothetical gravitational assists from the moon and Mars. An overall “delta v” budget of about 20 kilometers per second seems right. 20 is 5×4, meanind that the ratio of fuel to payload will be between about 80 and 240 times the payload mass. To put this into perspective, the Voyager spacecraft was launched from a Saturn III rocket; the total mass of the Saturn was about 60,000 kg, while the mass of the Voyager payload is 770 kg (information taken from Wikipedia). Not all of the Saturn III rocket was fuel, of course; the fuel to payload ratio was probably no better than about 50. (I can’t find the specific information on this, however, and the fact that the Saturn is a multistage rocket complicates things.) A Saturn III rocket wouldn’t be big enough– at least, so long as the rocket for the Europa mission is using chemical fuels, which it seemed to be. The footage used to show the liftoff was clearly of a smaller rocket carrying an uncrewed satellite payload.
It gets worse because a crewed mission is by neccessity much higher mass than an uncrewed one. There were six crew. The Apollo 11 Command and Service Module had a total mass of 28,000 kilograms to house half the number of crew for a few days rather than several years (including the return voyage.) You’d probably need a much larger craft for this mission. This in a nutshell is why crewed spaceflight is tough.
On to some other issues: as the ship moves farther from Earth, it will take longer and longer for messages to go from Earth to the ship and back again because of the finite speed of light. It takes 8.3 minutes for light to go a distance of 1 astronomical unit. Even as close as the Moon, there should have been a noticeable 1.7 second delay between a crewmember speaking to NASA and the response. As they pass Mars (closest approach about 0.5 AU), the delay in communication should have been at least 8 minutes – 4 to get to Earth, and 4 to return. I never saw this mentioned, and it never seemed to take the crew any time to talk to mission control.
(Spoiler alert) Another issue is that the crew never returns – all are lost on the voyage out or due to a series of disasters on Europa. Some of these disasters seem avoidable, especially (part of) the first tragedy, in which a crewmember is lost en route. I will only say this about it: under current NASA regulations, astronauts never attempt a space walk unless there is some means to get back to the spacecraft: either a line or an all-axis maneuverable harness. This was the kind of problem which could have been avoided with 20 cents of rope from the hardware store…
More nitpicks: on Europa, someone says that the temperature outside is absolute zero. It’s not – the average Europan temperature is about 50 above absolute zero, warm enough for hydogren to be liquid. Scientists are pretty picky about this; I can’t imagine any trained scientist making this goof. Also, you can clearly hear the drill cutting into the ice from outside the ship, despite the surface being in vacuum. This is something that really bugs me – sound waves are vibrations in matter.No air, no sound. If the sound was traveling through the ice and into the ship through the hull, it should have been very faint and distorted.
And now to my final two points: first off, all of the tragedies were avoidable with the simple expedient of sending a robotic mission to Europa to explore the moon. Yes, it’s not as glamorous or dramatic (Jerry Pournelle has rather famously said that nobody ever gives a robot a ticker-tape parade), but it could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost of a crewed mission, and no danger to anyone. The narrator of this “documentary” defined their end as successful in the face of tragedy, but I’m not inclined to agree no matter how great the discovery they made before dying. It could have just as easily been made by robot. Of course, you probably couldn’t make a movie about the dramatic robot mission to Europa to discover life there.
Secondly, it’s a sad commentary on science fiction in the media that movies like this, where there is at least some attempt to get the science right, come around only about once every decade. I think it is possible to have drama and accurate science at the same time, as this movie and movies like Avatar and 2001 show. I don’t dislike things like Star Wars or superhero movies with their flagrant disregard for the laws of physics – if nothing else, it’s grist for the critics mill. But it’s too bad that the right stuff comes along so little. Oh, well – Sturgeon’s law, I guess.