news

NATURE | VOL 421 | 27 FEBRUARY 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 881

spacecraft. Public protests have accompa-nied the previous launches of spacecraftcarrying small amounts of nuclear material(see Nature 410, 626; 2001), and the Colum-bia accident has enhanced fears over safety.

NASA will also have to convince Con-gress that the mission is worth $4 billion.Advocates of planetary exploration say thatnuclear propulsion is the best option, andthat a similar system could be used on othermissions if the orbiter is successful. But LouisFriedman, executive director of the Plan-etary Society in Pasadena, California, pointsout that if the project runs into problems,Europa exploration — a high priority forplanetary scientists — could take longer thanif conventional propulsion were used. ■

Tony Reichhardt, WashingtonDaring, scientifically rewarding but fraughtwith technical and political risk. That’s theway many space scientists view a proposednuclear-powered Jupiter mission that wouldbe the most capable — and probably themost expensive — planetary spacecraft everlaunched by NASA.

The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter conceptwas unveiled earlier this month as part ofNASA’s budget request for 2004. Slated forlaunch no earlier than 2011, the orbiter is the centrepiece of Project Prometheus, amultibillion-dollar effort to develop nuclearpower and propulsion for deep-space exploration. The planned budget for theorbiter alone would exceed $90 million nextyear. Sources in Congress suggest that thetotal budget needed to launch the spacecraftcould run to $4 billion.

The orbiter’s nuclear reactor wouldpower an ion-drive engine: a device thatexpels ionized gas at high velocities to produce a small but continuous thrust. Inweight terms, nuclear-powered thrusters aremore fuel-efficient than those that use con-ventional chemical fuels. This would allowthe orbiter to perform manoeuvres such asorbiting three of Jupiter’s moons in succes-sion. The orbiter is intended to circle threesatellites — Europa, Ganymede and Callisto— for months at a time, seeking evidence ofoceans beneath their icy surfaces.

Using a nuclear reactor also greatly

increases the on-board power. The Cassinispacecraft, en route to Saturn, has about 875 watts of power on board. A nuclear reactor could produce tens of kilowatts.“This changes the entire regime of scienceexperiments,” says Colleen Hartman, headof the Solar System exploration division atNASA’s headquarters in Washington. Morepowerful ice-penetrating radars could beflown and more data sent back to Earth.

NASA faces many hurdles if these benefitsare to be realized. The agency has neverlaunched a space-based nuclear reactor, forexample. Keeping the reactor away from thescientific instruments may dictate a differentshape for the orbiter, and NASA will have tolearn how to stabilize and manoeuvre such a

NASA pins hopes on nuclear-powered orbiter

Europe draws up plans for funding agencyMarieke Degen, MunichThe future of science in the European Union(EU) began to take shape last week, as plansfor a new basic-research funding agencygained momentum.

A high-level expert group met for thefirst time on 19 February in Paris, chargedwith outlining options for the creation of a European Research Council (ERC). Theneed for an independent, multidisciplinaryagency has been intensively discussedduring the past six months, after a meetingof scientists and research managers hostedby the Danish Research Councils (see Nature419, 108–109; 2002). Advocates argue thatthe council is needed to close the gapbetween the quality of basic science inEurope and in the United States. It wouldcomplement the EU’s E17.5-billion(US$18.8-billion) application-orientedFramework Programme.

Members of the ERC expert group, whichconsists of national research-council headsand other science administrators, left most

details unconfirmed, but agreed on basicprinciples. Delegates said that the councilshould not become political and should becommitted to scientific excellence, ratherthan ensuring that each country receives asmuch back as it puts in.

The council’s structure, size and fundingmechanisms have yet to be defined. Inparticular, it is unclear to what extent any new agency will redistribute funds from existing EU and national researchprogrammes, or how much fresh money it is likely to bring in. Discussions at themeeting about the council’s budget coveredfigures from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of euros.

The idea has the strong backing of atleast one section of the research community.Some 300 leading life scientists andrepresentatives of national funding agenciesheld an independent meeting after theexpert-group gathering, to discuss theplanned council. Frank Gannon, director of the European Molecular Biology

Organization in Heidelberg, Germany, whohelped to organize the second meeting, saysthat the council should focus on fundingbasic, investigator-driven research andsupporting research infrastructure.

The expert group will refine its plansover the next few months and consultresearchers outside the life sciences.

“It is important that scientists give us afeeling of what they need, and of which areasthey think the council should cover,” saysMogens Flensted-Jensen, vice-chairman ofthe Danish Research Councils and a memberof the expert group. “But it is equallyimportant to bring the ERC to the politicalagenda without further delay. Our task nowis to work out a concrete proposal for how tolaunch it as soon as possible.”

According to optimistic predictions, thecouncil could come into being as early as2004, when the Republic of Ireland takesover presidency of the EU, followed by theNetherlands. Both countries are expected tosupport the initiative. ■

High flier: NASA’s planned orbiter for Jupiter’s moons could revolutionize planetary exploration.

NA

SA

© 2003 Nature Publishing Group