Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Satellite Celebrates 20 Years Working in Orbit

Posted by michael on Mon Mar 01, 2004 04:41 PM
from the retirement-age dept.
Space Science
lloydwood writes "The UoSAT-2/UO-11 small satellite was launched into low Earth orbit on 1 March 1984 from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Twenty years later, it's still in orbit and operational -- and we recently found launch footage. To celebrate the twentieth anniversary of starting in orbit, the original video celebrating the UoSAT-2 launch is available (in windows media and mpeg). Thrill to the computers, the clothes, and the haircuts of 1984. SSTL has launched more than twenty satellites since."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Satellite Celebrates 20 Years Working in Orbit | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 199 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Not for a few more minutes... (Score:4, Funny)

    by suso (153703) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:43PM (#8433928)
    (http://suso.suso.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09 2004, @12:03AM)
    Just wait, I'm calibrating the targeting device on my low orbit space modulator.

    Hold it... Hold it........ Fire!

  • I bet... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Cytlid (95255) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:43PM (#8433932)
    (http://geexology.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 11 2005, @07:25PM)
    ...it runs Unix.

  • Umm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by leifm (641850) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:44PM (#8433941)
    Since when do we celebrate various equipment still working? Guess I better ready for my PS2's upcoming 2 year still working anniversary!

  • After it is /.ed (~60 meg video!) (Score:4, Funny)

    by mobby_6kl (668092) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:45PM (#8433951)
    [Insert obligatory "1982 web servsr" joke]

  • Slashdotting imminent (Score:5, Funny)

    by capz loc (752940) <capzlocNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 01 2004, @04:46PM (#8433956)
    With posting a 64-meg MPEG, I think we can be sure that their server won't have nearly the uptime of the satellite.

  • If it was... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SisyphusShrugged (728028) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:46PM (#8433961)
    (http://www.igerard.co.uk/)
    If it was made twenty years ago, wouldnt it have to be 10,000 times larger than a modern computer and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe would own them.

  • Not quite as amazing as Oscar 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rorschach1 (174480) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:48PM (#8433978)
    (http://n1vg.net/)
    The Oscar 7 [amsat.org] satellite was launched from the same place in 1974. It spent about 20 years dead in space after its batteries shorted, before it started working again out of the blue.

    Incidentally, that launch pad [spaceflightnow.com] is about 3 miles from where I'm sitting. I can see it if I climb up on the antenna tower on the roof, but management got mad last time I did that to watch a launch.

  • 1984 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:48PM (#8433987)
    Hey, some of us remember 1984, you insensitive clod!
    • Re:1984 by trick-knee (Score:3) Monday March 01 2004, @04:52PM
      • Re:1984 by Tumbleweed (Score:3) Monday March 01 2004, @04:58PM
      • Re:1984 by joebok (Score:1) Monday March 01 2004, @05:21PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:1984 by mhayenga (Score:1) Monday March 01 2004, @05:15PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:1984 by red floyd (Score:2) Monday March 01 2004, @05:18PM
      • Re:1984 by Angry Toad (Score:2) Monday March 01 2004, @07:51PM

    • Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)

      by digital bath (650895) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:30PM (#8434325)
      (http://www.seektherush.com/)
      I must say, 1984 sure was a double-plus-good year.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:1984 by Sethus (Score:1) Tuesday March 02 2004, @01:13AM

  • Bad press (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @04:49PM (#8433994)
    Things like this should be publicized much more than the stupid mistakes NASA makes. It's hard to keep a car running 20 years even with a constant supply of oil and maintanence work. This is much cooler, and deserves more media attention than a mixing up of metric and Imperial measurements (all though the mixups are STILL important). Eh, just a quick rant.

    • Re:Bad press (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jsebrech (525647) on Monday March 01 2004, @06:30PM (#8434847)
      Actually, this would be more akin to keeping a computer running for 20 years non-stop, without ever having to manually powercycle it, and without replacing a single piece of hardware, in the middle of antarctica. Much more impressive that just doing good car maintenance.

      Still, I think it's pretty sad that computers are even more frail than we humans are. For ages most of what we built outlasted us; now the tables have turned.
      [ Parent ]

  • So... (Score:1)

    by TWX (665546) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:49PM (#8433995)
    ... what did they do right that Skylab did wrong? Except not be a part of NASA, of course...
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 20 years uptime (Score:4, Funny)

    by vpscolo (737900) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:49PM (#8433998)
    (http://www.vpscolo.com/)
    Now if we had hardware/software that could do that you could truely run a business with 100% SLA. Of course if you had a bewoulf of these... ...I'll get me coat

    Rus

  • hair? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Matey-O (518004) * <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Monday March 01 2004, @04:50PM (#8434008)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 19 2002, @10:25AM)
    "and the haircuts of 1984"

    Those are not 1984 haircuts....Flock of Seagulls had 1984 haircuts....these are the haircuts of people that don't give a lot of wattage to personal apperance.

    If they were closer to New York, we could give the Fab 5 a call! (http://bravotv.com/Queer_Eye_for_the_Straight_Guy /)
    • Re:hair? by Kozar_The_Malignant (Score:1) Monday March 01 2004, @05:42PM
      • Re:hair? by Fizzl (Score:2) Tuesday March 02 2004, @01:17AM
    • Re:hair? by grozzie2 (Score:2) Tuesday March 02 2004, @12:15AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:hair? by GigsVT (Score:1) Monday March 01 2004, @06:17PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Landsat 5's birthday, too ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @04:51PM (#8434014)
    http://www.spaceimagingme.com/content/Constellatio n/Landsat/index.asp

    Launch Date March 1, 1984
    Launch Vehicle Delta 3920
    Launch Location Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
    Weight 1938 kg

    Pheakin' bird was inctruckingcredibly sturdy.

  • Watching a slashdot happen... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dracolytch (714699) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:52PM (#8434030)
    (http://www.dracosoftware.com/)
    Kinda cool, actually...

    Downloading at: 45 KBps

    30 seconds later...

    Downloading at: 40 KBps

    20 seconds later...

    Downloading at: 35 KBps

    The race is on! Will I get the file before the server dies?!?

    ~D

  • Life expectancy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by milgr (726027) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:53PM (#8434043)
    So what is the life expectancy for this satelite?

  • TORRENT (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @04:54PM (#8434054)
    Torren of the WMV file HERE [sbl.ath.cx].

    This service brought to your courtesy of Soup, Bread, Linux.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by patdabiker (710704) on Monday March 01 2004, @04:55PM (#8434061)
    (http://www.phatpat.com/)
    I posted a mirror of the video here [mac.com].

  • Fashion statement (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainCarrot (84625) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:00PM (#8434115)
    Thrill to the computers, the clothes, and the haircuts of 1984.

    Although we can be reasonably well-assured that the computers were state-of-the-art at the time, the clothes and haircuts are another matter. Please remember that these are professional geeks we're talking about, and are therefore not exactly cutting edge when it comes to fashion. To all appearances it was closer to 1978 than 1984.

    I know this because I was in college in 1984, and we all looked great, but these guys look like dorks.

  • Pretty amazing.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brain1 (699194) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:02PM (#8434134)
    Considering that batteries die with age, solar panels degrade with exposure, and radiation of all sorts bombard the spacecraft. Also you have to have fuel to station keep, and it is only recently that ion thrusters have become available that dont require a lot of reaction mass to operate.

    20 years of operation in the harsh environment of space gets my applause.

  • 1984 was so long ago (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @05:04PM (#8434148)
    Duke Nukem: Forever was only 3 years into development.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 20 years alright (Score:3, Funny)

    by ravenspear (756059) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:08PM (#8434172)
    and we recently found launch footage

    Unfortunately they forgot to update the server it was originally hosted on way back in the day.

  • Magnet links? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WeblionX (675030) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:12PM (#8434195)
    (http://www.weblionx.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 23, @01:11AM)
    Why do most sites that host large images/movies not supply magnet links? It'd save them loads on bandwidth and people could stop making jokes about the server.

    (Not that I'm complaining about downloading at 215KB/s from the server..)

  • 20 years is nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gavin Scott (15916) * on Monday March 01 2004, @05:15PM (#8434225)
    What about the amazing story of the Amateur Radio satallite Ostcar 7 that was launched in 1974, operated for six years, then died due to a shorted battery, only to re-awaken from the dead [arrl.org] in 2002 after 21 years of silence.

    So we have satellites that work after having been dead longer than your satellites have been alive.

    Nyeah.

    G.

  • Satellite goes up... (Score:2)

    by Undefined Parameter (726857) <fuel4freedom.yahoo@com> on Monday March 01 2004, @05:26PM (#8434306)
    ... webserver goes crashing down. She hasn't impacted yet, but she's burnin' up in the atmosphere as I type!

    I just hope the satellite's not being controlled from that poor box....

    ~UP

  • Just to clarify... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rico_za (702279) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:36PM (#8434388)
    UoSAT-2 was not a Nasa mission. It was built by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd in Guildford, a University town just west of London. We [sstl.co.uk]'ve grown quite a bit since then. We specialize in building small satellites (think 100 kgs, not 1000's of kgs). It's a different way of doing things to the way NASA and ESA usually does, but it's catching on.

  • Soundtrack? (Score:2)

    by Koyaanisqatsi (581196) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:40PM (#8434425)
    Anyone happen to know which song plays on the video? It's actually quite good ...

  • Congrats! But... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @05:42PM (#8434445)
    ...doesn't it just beep?! WooHoo!!

    Ground Control: Can you here me now?

    UoSAT-2/UO-11: BEEP!!

    Ground Control: Gooood!

  • An Acorn BBC computer (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @05:49PM (#8434505)
    That's an Acorn BBC computer! (see 1st and 3rd picture from the top) Who'da thought I'd ever see one of those beauties again. 32 whopping KB of RAM and a Basic interpreter. Some of my best coding memories was on the 'beeb'!

  • How much has changed? (Score:2)

    by myowntrueself (607117) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:50PM (#8434516)
    "Thrill to the computers, the clothes, and the haircuts of 1984."

    I wonder if those same clothes, computers and haircuts are still in use at NASA...

  • Tremendous achievement... (Score:1)

    by Cerberus9 (466562) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:59PM (#8434609)
    Imagine that, someone put up a satellite a whole 2 years before Mir went operational, and it's still there three and a half years after Mir was decommissioned.

    Let me know if the ISS is still in one peice in 2017; then I'll be impressed.

  • Oh sure, a satellite that is hundreds of miles away from us gets a big listing just for turning 20. But my TI-35 calculator that's been working since 1983 gets no respect at all :)

  • What about Iridium? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Aumaden (598628) <Devon.C.Miller@g ... m minus language> on Monday March 01 2004, @06:26PM (#8434818)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday March 15 2006, @04:00PM)
    If the UoSAT-2/UO-11 is still functioning after 20 years, why was there such a rush to deorbit [spaceandtech.com] the Iridium satellite constellation?

  • Landsat 5 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vsprintf (579676) on Monday March 01 2004, @06:42PM (#8434962)

    Well, as long as we're celebrating, today is the 20th anniversary of the launch of Landsat 5. If you want to talk about a work horse, it has been returning Earth observation data used by scientists everywhere for two decades as well. It just might outlive its successor.

    Landsat 5 [spaceimagingme.com]

    • Re:Landsat 5 by cr@ckwhore (Score:2) Monday March 01 2004, @07:58PM

  • Oldest working Satellite is 30 years (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stalke (20083) on Monday March 01 2004, @06:46PM (#8435003)
    This satellite is barely past middle age. A quick google [google.ca] search finds that AO-7 [eham.net] is the oldest working satellite and it will turn 30 this year. Mark your calendars boys and girls. November 15 is the day when the _real_ excitement starts. I'm starting an iCal shared calendar right now so I don't forget it!

  • RIAA sued your pants off yet? (Score:1)

    by mscalora (226843) on Monday March 01 2004, @06:56PM (#8435081)
    (http://home.scarynet.com/)
    Hasn't the UK arm of the RIAA sued your pants off yet? The music on the video sounds familiar.

  • Pioneer 6 is 38 years old now! (Score:3, Informative)

    by enosys (705759) on Monday March 01 2004, @07:09PM (#8435189)
    (http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/)
    NASA's Pioneer 6 [space.com] was launched on December 16, 1965. It was contacted in December 2000, when it was 35 years old. NASA doesn maintain regular contact with it but it's quite possible it's still functional. It was designed for a six-month mission to study the solar wind, magnetic field and cosmic rays. It is in solar orbit at about 0.8 AU.

  • well (Score:1)

    by Dr.Knackerator (755466) on Monday March 01 2004, @07:16PM (#8435257)
    (Last Journal: Monday June 14 2004, @01:58PM)
    thats a BBC model B home computer on the left in the first shot, whats on the right? IIRC it looks like a Prime terminal if anybody here is old enough to remember them!
    • Re:well by sapbasisnerd (Score:1) Tuesday March 02 2004, @12:00AM

  • AMSAT-UK is issuing special QSL cards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cr@ckwhore (165454) on Monday March 01 2004, @07:43PM (#8435449)
    (http://www.snowjournal.com/)
    AMSAT-UK is issuing 1000 special edition QSL cards to radio amateurs world-wide that submit signal/reception reports from the satellite during the month of March. Super-special edition QSL cards are given to radio amateurs who submit signal reports on March 1 (today), the satellite's anniversay.

    For the non-ham-operators among us, a QSL card (not SQL) is basically a post-card that hams send each other after making contact.

    So earlier today, remembering that I had read about the March 1st QSL cards, I pulled up my handy sat prediction software (PREDICT) along with the equally handy gsat client, updated keplerian elements, synced my pc's time so I could achieve the most accurate predictions possible.

    Had a good pass of UO-11 with about 50 degrees at elevation at 3:45 this afternoon (20:45 UTC) ... went out to the jeep and hooked my quad-band Yaesu VX-7R into a 5/8th wave magmount antenna (2-meter band) hoping to get the best possible reception I could with my gear. Adjusted for frequency doppler, and BAM! There it was... I had UO-11's telemetry on 145.825 ... got nice and loud during mid-pass ... record a WAV file of the telemetry when the signal was at it's best. When the sat was exiting my half of north america, I was still faintly hearing the telemetry on 145.820, adjusted down for doppler.

    So, of course, I submitted my signal report to AMSAT-UK this afternoon. They're going to verify my data, and I get a gold star when they're done. Today, I reached a new pinnacle of geekdom. Long live the hams!

    de N1ZPP
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 1984? (Score:1)

    by marinebane (743426) on Tuesday March 02 2004, @01:45AM (#8437959)
    It would be too Ironic if this was a spy sattelite, being launched in 1984 and all...

  • UoSAT-2 video (Score:1)

    by nk6k (758285) on Tuesday March 02 2004, @12:47PM (#8442176)
    I made this video, way back when. Very tediously, as I recall, the jvc editing system I was using (rented at $20/hr, I think) wasn't meant for music videos. The music is skewed from the images a bit on this mpeg version of a 3rd generation copy, so you don't get the crisp cuts that the original had, but the quality is quite good, considering. Anyway, the back story of the video was that UoSAT-2 was "lost" shortly after launch - the transmitter was off and it we couldn't make contact, making the words of the song relevant to those of us who had worked 24 hours a day to get it ready. I worked on the UoSat-2 DCE (digital communications experiment) one of the first non-military store and forward communications systems. After about 10 weeks, communications was established through sheer tenaciousness by the command crew (Neville Bean). A three instruction program was written in the DCE to bypass a failed command data path, and UoSAT-2 has been in business ever since. The whole thing made for great stories, damaging a big radio telescope trying to track fast enough to hear the local oscillator on the receiver (it did), talking the British truck driver into letting me drive the spacecraft from LAX to Vandenberg because he kept trying to shift the rented truck with the break instead of the clutch (I had to let him drive my new Firebird), etc. There is an in-joke every 10 seconds, though I haven't written them down in 20 years. Maybe next anniversary. To answer the usual question, the main processor is an 1802, the DCE has an NEC800 Z80/like processor. No Unix. - Harold

  • Re:FIRST POST! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @04:59PM (#8434092)

    I must post this anonymously.

    I was a junior engineer on the UoSAT-2/UO-11 project. Early into the project a group of military people visited us. We were asked various odd questions. This exchange in particular remains strong in my memory:
    Military Man: Can we mount a laser into this satellite?
    My Boss: No way, that'd require a lot of reenforcement of the tube chamber (back then we didn't have solid state).
    Military Man: You could compensate with more fuel for launch. I'll approve it myself.
    My Boss: But.. a laser? What size are you talking about and for what?
    Military Man: [leans to assistant, whispers back and forth] We can tell you but your juniors [myself and 2 co-workers] will have to leave. [we did]

    my boss left the project immediately and worked on a secret payload project overseen by the military. Whatever that bird has in it, it's looking down at us.
    [ Parent ]

    • Re:FIRST POST! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @05:12PM (#8434206)
      I, too, must post this anonymously.

      I was that Military Man. The project to which you refer was the 'Alan Parsons Project'. We were going to put a jumbo 'laser' on the moon as part of a world domination plan. Didn't work out for some reason, I think a British agent foiled the plan or something.
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

    • Re:FIRST POST! (Score:4, Funny)

      by slipgun (316092) on Monday March 01 2004, @06:03PM (#8434642)
      Now listen to me, sonny. I work for the SIS, and I don't want you to ever repeat this story again. What happened was secret then, and is now. You may find your life getting a little more difficult if you tell anyone else, you see what I mean? Keep quiet.

      I've ordered Taco to pull your post immediately. Remember, if you tell anyone else, we'll find you. I hear Belmarsh isn't too pleasant at this time of year.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:FIRST POST! by TheSync (Score:2) Tuesday March 02 2004, @02:06AM
    • MOD PARENT DOWN by richi (Score:1) Tuesday March 02 2004, @04:29PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Re:Lame song..... (Score:1)

    by donnyfire (679042) on Monday March 01 2004, @05:00PM (#8434105)
    And yet it was a smash hit in the mid-'80s, recieving quite a bit of airtime on MTV and the radio.
    [ Parent ]

  • Re:Lame song..... (Score:2)

    by satanami69 (209636) on Monday March 01 2004, @10:18PM (#8436610)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    Sadly, I have it on repeat now.

    http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/peterschilli ng.htm [80smusiclyrics.com]

    [ Parent ]
  • 17 replies beneath your current threshold.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.