Customer Reviews

Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter's Ocean Moon

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I had just finished the book "Titan Unveiled: Saturn's Mysterious Moon Explored" and really really appreciated its content, quality, and the author's style. So I went for another book about a gas-giant moon - and ended up with Unmasking Europa.

Clearly, the author is carrying around some huge emotional baggage and it comes out literally on every single page. The science is buried in the defensive attitude.
I could not complete this short book - it was too saturated with the author's dissatisfaction with other scientists and the space community. Disappointed.

This was a very frustrating book to read. It has one very good narrative and one very bad.

The first narrative is an elegant and convincing set of arguments for the author's view that Europa has a shell of thin ice riding on a liquid water ocean. For example Greenberg's explanation of tidal forces and the orbital mechanics of the Jovian moons is clear, eloquent and a beautiful piece of science writing.

Unfortunately this book has second narrative that is distracting and frustrating.
Greenberg commits half of his time complaining of being marginalized by his peers, and having to fight to prove his ideas about Europa. However, when he discusses the competing ideas he is so condescending and dismissive that he comes across as a tedious self-righteous whiner.

The book is full of sarcastic use of quotes, idiotic statements like "He is now a Jesuit brother, so he is reasonably credible", and references to other scientists on the team as the "Galileo Regime", the "thick-ice clique", riding on the "thick-ice bandwagon", and adhering to the "party line".

When talking about himself though he points out with satisfaction that his students honored "their thesis advisor" by naming a fracture after him and has the gall to compare himself to Galileo (although he quickly denies that this is what he is doing).

Chapter 14 (Thick vs. Thin), what should have been the climax of the book and the summary of Greenberg's arguments for a thin-ice crust, is completely unreadable and I had to skip most of it or just give up on the book.

I am sure that most lay people (the stated target audience for this book) including me are eager to root for the thin-ice model of Europa, because it makes the possibility of life existing there a lot more likely. Regrettably, Greenberg, by virtue of bad writing and very poor editing does his best to turn everyone away, and I suggest that you should find another book about Europa.

Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter's Ocean Moon by Richard Greenberg is the exploration of one of the more interesting planetary bodies of our solar system ... Europa, a moon of Jupiter, as well as one of the more interesting episodes in the politics of science.

Europa is the sixth moon of Jupiter, and is almost the size of our Moon. But get this: Europa has a thin Oxygen atmosphere, and is covered with water. This makes it a very likely place for life to evolve.

Being so far from the sun, and having a very thin atmosphere (and some other considerations) means that Europa does not receive enough solar energy to be wrmed like the earth is. But, being so close to massive Jupiter, tidal energy does in fact heat the planet up, and the thermodynamics of this tide-powered planet are complex and fascinating. In short, Europa's ocean is probably often liquid but usually covered with ice, but the ice breaks up, water comes flying out, all sorts of complex interesting things happen depending on conditions.

Greenberg's book represents a detailed chronicle of the exploration of Europa by Voyager and Galileo, and provides convincing evidence that his particular model (the semi-liquid, as opposed to the it's always frozen, model) of Eruopa's surface structure is probably right.

The book is well written, in fact, I found it riveting.

Greenberg, however, did not come to the conclusions he came to, or carry out the research he did with NASA without significant cost. He makes the point in Unmasking... that "Big Science" is a very flawed enterprise, and he provides quite a bit of discussion of conflict surrounding the research program.

Frankly, I think this could have been two books: One just on Europa, which would have been quite interesting, and one on the politics of big science. But this is how the author chose to do it, and he was the guy in the trenches...

I also have the sense that the writing of this book may have been a necessary cathartic experience for Geenberg. This sense, assuming that this is not just something I was imagining, makes the book a little more interesting. There are points where you can smell the politics. Also, I've noticed that many non-scientist readers of science books enjoy the personal side of the story, so I suspect this book will be widely enjoyed.

To give you a flavor, here is an excerpt from the publisher's overview of the book:


"The book also provides unique insights into how "big science" gets done today, and it is not always a pretty picture. From his perspective as a Professor of Planetary Sciences at the University of Arizona, and a quarter-century-long membership on the Imaging Team for the Galileo space mission, Greenberg describes how personal agendas (including his own) and political maneuvering (in which he received an education by fire) determined a lot about the funding, staffing, and even the direction of research about Europa.

While he is satisfied that his team's work is now, finally, receiving fair consideration and even respect, Greenberg comes away from his decades-long experience feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with the scientific enterprise as a whole because it routinely punishes innovation, risk-taking thought, and a willingness to simply let the evidence lead where it may. In today's scientific culture, with its careerist pressures and peer-reviewed propriety, Greenberg believes, astute scientists (and sadly many of our youngest and brightest scientists) quickly realize that the most rewarding research strategy is to stay within the mainstream--a tendency that by its very nature is at odds with the ideals of scientific investigation and thought."

This review also appears in my blog:
[...]

Unmasking Europa is an incredibly enjoyable read. I was drawn to it initially by a longstanding scientific interest, but got far more than I had anticipated: an amazingly honest description of the socio-political goings on in "big science" projects. I spent my professional career working in the related field of earth and ocean science, and can vouch based on personal experience that Greenberg has accurately captured the kinds of things that can and do happen.

If you've gotten this far, reading this and other reviews of Unmasking Europa, you clearly have an interest in this remarkable planetary object. Greenberg's book will broaden and deepen your understanding of Europa; it will also enhance your understanding of the necessarily imperfect way in which actual human beings push on the frontier.

When the words "search for life" appear in the title of a book, one can reasonably expect the book to primarily be about all the different ways that life can thrive on alien worlds and perhaps an overview of how life can survive in a variety of extreme environments. This is NOT what "Unmasking Europa" is primarily about. The author spends an agonizing amount of time discussing the technical geological details of how ridges and cracks form on Europa without giving much info on how the "search for life" is involved. In fact, out of the 18 chapters in the book, only 3 focus directly on topics pertaining to extraterrestrial life and how Europa can support various living organisms. As mentioned earlier, the rest of the book focuses on specific geological details of the different kinds of surface features on Europa. I found myself constantly yawning and frustrated because these prolonged geological discussions were not followed by details on the implications for extraterrestrial life.

The other major focus of the author is attacking the "thick ice" advocates that claim the external ice crust of Europa is actually very thick and the ocean is not close to the surface. The author references these scientists throughout every chapter and attacks their claims and methods with bitterness and clear bias. Such childish attacks and self-praise of the author's own theories distract from the topic itself and focus attention on the author's personal stake and immaturity. The author also comments on the politics of how "big science" (such as space exploration) works. Such discussions are very interesting at first but then the author once again reverts back to his bitter attacks on the thick ice advocates instead of objectively describing the situation like a true scientist. An insider's view of such situations is useful but only when the author takes great care to be as objective and analytic as possible. The author's constant "us vs. them" attitude ensured that this was not the case.

Ultimately, if you are looking for an interesting discussion of how life can form and how such theories can be applied to a setting like Europa then you will be sorely disappointed. This is NOT the focus of this book. If, however, you are looking for 200+ pages of geological details on the formation of surface features and bitter and biased commentary on fellow scientists and the political structure of space exploration, then this book IS for you.

What I liked so much about this book is that it's one of the few examples of a well written book about planetary science that tells a compelling story with dynamic characters and has a prose that engages the reader. Along the way the author uses concrete examples to explain what would otherwise seem to be very complicated processes in a way that someone without an academically scientific background can understand intuitively. I really loved the use of imagery as well in the text.

Opting to read Unmasking Europa in 2010, Richard Greenberg provides an interesting insight to the moon Europa and the debate about the thickness of the ice crust that covers the global surface of the unique moon. Therein is a significant part of the answer of whether or not it is a new life habitable zone within the solar system. While not a geologist or planetary scientist, I very much enjoyed reading of Greenberg's team findings and interpretations of the Europa image data relating to the ice thickness.

Beyond the Moon and Mars, Europa is in the sights of human space exploration in the 21st Century. The planned unmanned joint NASA-EAS Europa Jupiter System Mission is now being designed to analyze and monitor the icy shell of Jupiter's moon Europa and begin to settle the debate of thick or thin ice that is detailed in the content of Greenberg's book. Hopefully, many of the questions raised will be fully vetted in 2026/2027 as a new mission is designed to characterize water oceans beneath the ice shells. The truth will be found.

Greenberg's work is worthy of consideration of the EJO mission planning as he is well-versed in the craters, cracks, ridges, and curious patches of jumbled terrain called chaos, all of which speak of on-going active processes in this moon and the debate of thick or thin ice. Greenberg explains well the constantly-shifting, tidal forces flexing through Europa from Jupiter's powerful gravitation and what impact that may have on the prospects of alien life forms there.

Unmasking Europa is a gripping story of Big Science and the exploration of a new and unique water-world, a new world that should be explored by humans by mid-21st Century. Greenberg enables his readers to get a glimpse into what future explorers may confront on this dynamic moon around Jupiter. I am pleased to have read the book as it will provide insight to the scientific issues that confront us at this unique ice-covered ocean world. Through Thick or Thin, Europa Must be Explored! This book enables the imagination to take you there.

How can I appreciate a difference of opinions, as a layman, between scientists who seemingly have earned their authority in their particular fields of expertise, where I have none to offer, but a bit of common sense?

In the beginning of the book I was surprised by the spiteful undertone in which the author spoke about some of his peers and their research. But as his story, the story of Europa and the story of "big science", progresses one can start to understand the resentment Greenberg feels, if what he reveils is true. It gives a new dimension to the Galileo mission, not just a quest for discovery, but with it a small battleground for bickering scientists that let personal interests prevail above the search for the actual truth if needed.

I'm not talking about 'the truth' of Europa, because that is under scientific scrutiny, and in time, even the most controversial characteristic that is under questioning (thick icecrust vs thin icecrust) will become defined and a fact. It is just a question of when and how.

What I'm talking about is, that I find it disturbing that scientists are willing to bend their findings to different conclusions in order to stay in place with their "sponsors", wether the reward is money, firsthand information, promising careermoves in the future or simply the fact that being "wrong" is not an option. It would be a rather marginal conflictzone, if it were not for the billions of dollars that are spend on interplanetary missions. If information, harvested from these missions, is missused or not used at all, but simply stored away or misinterpreted and adopted without proper scientic basis that should be a serious issue in a country that has a soaring national deficit.

The growing stack of arguments for thin ice (as a premiss for a direct connection between the ocean and surface) and the seemingly obvious unscientific tactics to undermine or silence these arguments, would drive anyone nuts, that has 30 years of his career invested in the findings of this mission. Although I find his arguments quite compelling, I dare not say if he's right about his thin icecrust theory. Except for one thing, the arguments for thick ice, seem to lack the elegance of simplicity that Greenberg arguments have to offer. With that in mind and the implications that a thin icecrust can have on the shape, cost and caracter of a future mission to Europa, it is rather a good thing that Greenberg is not holding back and even becomes personal at times. It is almost an outcry for people to take notice. With the attention it draws they will likely to investigate and question the motives of anyone involved (including himself) in this or any future project. With it every aspect of a future mission to Europa (wether it be 2, 3 or even more decades away) is under scrutiny. And hopefully, there will be enough evidence and arguments to keep such a mission as costeffective as can be. In the case of Greenberg's thin ice theory it would mean not only that a mission could start much earlier, it would cost a view billions dollars less. He suggests that it would be very reasonable to investigate the current data, from the Voyager and Galileo missions, even more. For just a few millions of dollars, good science can be done, save and sound on earth. Without resorting to plan a new mission all too soon. Ironicaly with that, an overinvestment in time and money on the science of Europa, could be prevented, if new insights can be derived from this investigation. We could get more good science results from a future mission, and even sooner, by just going over the information we already have.

There are many more puzzles in our solar system, and it would be regretfull, if a lot of science is wasted because the money wasn't spend efficient and at it, the information misinterpreted.

If read in that context, Greenberg has not only delivered an exiting book on a fairly unknown body of our solar system. He also has provoked controversy by confrontation, as a wake up call perhaps, to deliver a message to all who like planetary science. Don't believe everything you read, question motives, question conclusions and most of all question the institutions who may have many more interests than purely the science of things. That is my aprecciation of things...and wether Europa has a thin icecrust, I still don't know for sure, but Greenberg did make a strong case for it. Time will tell.

This book is not an easy read even though it has been written down to a level fit for the ubiquitous intelligent layman. At times it is tedious and repetitious. This is the only complaint I have. Otherwise, the author writes with enviable clarity. But planetary geology is a tough read. I don't much like any kind of geology at all.

I found the polemics on the art of doing science the best part of the book. It brought back memories as I spent most of my scientific career as an employee of NASA. Like any human endeavor, there are heroes and knaves. I mostly remember the knaves as there were few heroes in my myopic view. The US reader - as tax payer - should pay particular attention. This is how your hard earned money is spent. This is the truth baby, not a rant or a whine. As the author states, there are tons of unanalyzed and forgotten data backlogged in NASA archives even as the next mission is being planned then implemented so new data can be archived, forgotten, and unanalyzed.

The author is an advocate of the "thin ice" interpretation of Europa's surface. People who think that his complaints vis-a-vis the thick ice cohort need to read their Thomas Kuhn.