<p>There is no feasible way for a human-made probe to crush through Europa's ice layer.</p>

<p>"It is predicted that the outer crust of solid ice is approximately 10–30 km (6–19 mi) thick." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>)</p>

<p>It's not even known, whether there is a liqud ocean at all under Europa's ice layer.</p>

<p>Instead of drilling one could try to slowly melt trough the ice.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-06T03:06:06.137Z
Several tons in an opposing solar orbit would make a pretty impressive bang and vaporize a whole lot of ice which might be sampled by a following probe. But miles of ice would be another thing entirely. Not an ethical way to search for life either.

I like the melt idea better. That would require nuclear power of some kind.
Marc
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T20:10:48.203Z
2014-02-03T20:17:07.873Z
2014-02-03T20:17:07.873Z
Gerald
<p>How big does a satelite we send have to be to be able to chrush through the ice layer and dive into the ocean on Europa? If a mission should head there, is this a better way of examining the ocean than landing on the surface and drilling through?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T18:57:43.787Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about space exploration and as such it should be asked in space.stackexchange.com
Eduardo Serra
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T21:01:37.370Z
Eduardo is correct that this is off-topic here, but on-topic on Space Exploration. However, it would be closed as a duplicate of either [What are the constraints for a successful robotic mission to Europa?](http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/331/what-are-the-constraints-for-a-successful-robotic-mission-to-europa) or [How to explore subsurface oceans (cheaply)?](http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/756/how-to-explore-subsurface-oceans-cheaply/830#830).
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-03T21:03:07.253Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about Space Exploration, which is covered on the Space Exploration Stack Exchange site (where answers to this question already exist).
called2voyage
<europa>
What is needed to break through the surface of Europa?
bogen
# What is needed to break through the surface of Europa?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-03)

How big does a satelite we send have to be to be able to chrush through the ice layer and dive into the ocean on Europa? If a mission should head there, is this a better way of examining the ocean than landing on the surface and drilling through?

**Tags:** europa

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about space exploration and as such it should be asked in space.stackexchange.com  
> **username_2**: username_1 is correct that this is off-topic here, but on-topic on Space Exploration. However, it would be closed as a duplicate of either [What are the constraints for a successful robotic mission to Europa?](http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/331/what-are-the-constraints-for-a-successful-robotic-mission-to-europa) or [How to explore subsurface oceans (cheaply)?](http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/756/how-to-explore-subsurface-oceans-cheaply/830#830).  
> **username_2**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about Space Exploration, which is covered on the Space Exploration Stack Exchange site (where answers to this question already exist).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-02-03. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

There is no feasible way for a human-made probe to crush through Europa's ice layer.

"It is predicted that the outer crust of solid ice is approximately 10–30 km (6–19 mi) thick." ([Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29))

It's not even known, whether there is a liqud ocean at all under Europa's ice layer.

Instead of drilling one could try to slowly melt trough the ice.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Several tons in an opposing solar orbit would make a pretty impressive bang and vaporize a whole lot of ice which might be sampled by a following probe. But miles of ice would be another thing entirely. Not an ethical way to search for life either.  I like the melt idea better. That would require nuclear power of some kind.  

---

