Titan vs. Europa: What Moon Would You Choose

Alexandra Campbell

Space exploration: this is the topic of the blog post today. Within the past few years there has been a running debate about where to send space missions. In the article “Choosing a World” from the magazine Nature, the author argues that the best choice for the next space mission is Titan. This is a moon of Saturn. A post from the Future Planetary Exploration blog on the other hand concedes that though both are interesting and important the Europa mission should continue. Europa is one of the moons of Jupiter that has the potential to support independent life. Each article offers a different opinion about which moon should be studied first, and though I agree that each moon sounds interesting in its own right and would offer the scientific community much insight, Europa’s chance at life is just too enticing an idea to pass up.

The author of “Choosing a World” is determined to convince readers that Titan is the best decision. That article was written in 2009 before Europa had tentatively been chosen to be the first mission. The Nature author argued that though Europa is interesting because it might support independent life, technologically NASA and the ESA (European Space Agency) do not have the equipment they would like to study the planet properly. As of now, studying it would consist of distant picture taking instead of landing on the surface and drilling into the frozen lake. This is the ultimate goal for scientists when it comes to this moon because they theorize if there is life, it is under the frozen layer of ice. Unlike Europa the technology that should be used to study Titan already exists. One of the technologies that proponents of the Titan mission want to use is a hot air balloon designed to float around in Titan’s atmosphere and take readings along with close pictures of the surface. In the mind of this author, Titan is the clear decision.


In 2010, a year after the previous article, a blog post was written about the state of the Titan-Europa debate. The blogger also stated his opinion on situation. He says that NASA and ESA are focusing on Europa because of the possibility of the technological advancements that could be made in the next decade as they prepare for the mission. I believe this is NASA and the ESA’s way of saying that we must study Europa because there might be life. This would explain the confidence and determinism that it has set on Europa. Obviously, the lack of current technology able to study Jupiter’s moon does not deter them like the author of the Nautre felt it should. The blogger asserts his opinion at the end of the article which is very similar to NASA’s. He wants to continue supporting the Europa mission but at the same time make sure there is enough money to adequately support and nurture the Titan project.


The blogger also mentions that the true decision on whether to support one moon over the other (though NASA is favoring Europa) will come from the decadal survey which is performed by the Space Studies Board which exists within The National Academies. This institution guides the further research of science, engineering, and medicine.


Europa may have life, but it could be difficult to find and to study the planet in general admits both sources, though NASA is sure they can overcome this issue. The Nature author champions Titan, and the fact that it is easier to study, but admits that it is not necessarily as enthralling as the possibility of life. After reading both articles I firmly behind Europa, but the big question is what moon would you choose?


Works Cited


“Choosing a World.” Nature 457.7228 (2009): 358. Web. 29 Jan 2012.


“Europa vs. Titan Redux.” futureplanets.blogspot.com. Future Planetary Exploration. 27 Mar 20
2010. Web. 1 Jan 2012.


Space Studies Board. The National Academies, 2012. Web. 29 Jan 2012.