Slashdot Log In
Cassini's Primary Mission Ends, Two-Year Extension Begins
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:49 PM
from the nice-work-folks dept.
from the nice-work-folks dept.
wooferhound points out recent news that the Cassini probe has completed its original four-year mission and is beginning a two-year extended mission, which was authorized earlier this year. Cassini's first mission brought us a treasure trove of information about Saturn and its various moons. The new mission will target two of those moons in particular for further study: Titan and Enceladus. Quoting:
"The spacecraft is extremely healthy and carries 12 instruments powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Data from Cassini's nominal and extended missions could lay the groundwork for possible future missions to Saturn, Titan or Enceladus. [The two moons] are primary targets in the two-year extended mission, dubbed the Cassini Equinox Mission. This time period also will allow for monitoring seasonal effects on Titan and Saturn, exploring new places within Saturn's magnetosphere, and observing the unique ring geometry of the Saturn equinox in August of 2009 when sunlight will pass directly through the plane of the rings."
Related Stories
[+]
Cassini Confirms New Moon of Saturn 207 comments
pipcorona writes ""In a spectacular kick-off to its first season of prime ring viewing, which began last month, the Cassini spacecraft has confirmed earlier suspicions of an unseen moon hidden in a gap in Saturn's outer A ring. A new image and movie show the new moon and the waves it raises in the surrounding ring material."
[+]
Cassini Probes the Hexagon On Saturn 280 comments
Riding with Robots sends us to a NASA page with photos of a little-understood hexagonal shape surrounding Saturn's north pole. "This is a very strange feature, lying in a precise geometric fashion with six nearly equally straight sides," said Kevin Baines, member of Cassini's visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team. "We've never seen anything like this on any other planet." This structure was discovered by the Voyager probes over 20 years ago (here's an 18-year-old note on the mystery). The fact that it's still in place means it is stable and long-lived. Scientists have no idea what causes the hexagon. It's nearly big enough to fit four earths inside — comfortably larger than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. The article has an animation of clouds moving within the hexagon captured in infrared light.
[+]
Cassini Finds Evidence For Ocean Inside Titan 79 comments
Riding with Robots writes "NASA reports that by using data from the Cassini probe's radar, scientists established the locations of 50 unique landmarks on the surface of Saturn's planet-size moon Titan. They then searched for these same lakes, canyons and mountains in the data after subsequent Titan flybys. They found that the features had shifted from their expected positions by up to 30 kilometers. NASA says a systematic displacement of surface features would be difficult to explain unless the moon's icy crust was decoupled from its core by an internal ocean, making it easier for the crust to move. If confirmed, this discovery would add to the growing list of moons in the solar system that are icy on the outside and warm and liquid inside, providing potential habitats. We've previously discussed Titan's hydrocarbon lakes and potential cryovolcano."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
what the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Authorized? What exactly would NASA/whomever have talked about when they were deciding this?
Is it still working? Yes.
How well is it working? Everything seems to be responding within operational parameters.
How much does it cost to keep listening for another couple of years, while it continues exploring? We estimate it to be maybe 0.01% of the cost of sending a new probe to do the same thing.
Sir, since we are at the end of it's planned lifespan, do we have authorization to keep listening to it or shall we send it the destruct signal? I'm leaning towards self-destruct, but maybe we can get some good PR showing how reliable some of our stuff is w.r.t. those shuttle disasters, so I guess we'll keep listening.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose they mean that a number of extended missions were proposed and evaluated, and this happens to be the mission that was authorized, beating out the other proposals.
Somehow I doubt that issuing a self-destruct signal was one of the other proposals ;)
Parent
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not seeing the strange.
Also, while we no longer build them like we used to, the Viking landers and orbiters grossly outperformed their expected MTBF. Viking 1 Lander went over SIX YEARS on the surface of Mars, taking pictures and so on, until some tool on Earth told it to point the main antenna elsewhere, making it hard to get back in touch.
Go over that again... SIX FREAKING YEARS. What was the expected duration? Quite a lot less. It's not unreasonable for us to expect Phoenix to possibly beat it's expiration date as well.
Parent
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
(The Giotto probe that flew into Halley's Comet got blasted by pea-sized lumps of rock but had software designed to cope with such a contingency, and the armour to withstand it. Two layers of kevlar, interleaved with two layers of anti-meteorite shielding.)
NASA has grown poorer, is rushing these missions as much as possible, and can't afford to build systems as robustly as they should, but more importantly, missions have become tougher and involve more hazardous environments.
Parent
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as geologically inactive as had been thought, the dust devils are nasty devils, and very little is understood about the polar regions.
I don't know what you've been hearing, but first couple of things are bunk. The spacecraft takes a big jolt when it lands. Sure it doesn't have all the instruments out then, but most earthquakes are as insignificant on Mars as they are on Earth. Second (googling around a bit), I find that the probe doesn't point at Earth. It has a non-directional UHF antenna [nasa.gov] with hemispherical coverage of the sky. This antenna allows communication with two satellites currently in orbit around Mars. That's how it communicates with Earth.
Second, the dust devils aren't nasty because the martian atmosphere is no more than 1% of Earth's atmospheric pressure.
NASA has grown poorer, is rushing these missions as much as possible, and can't afford to build systems as robustly as they should, but more importantly, missions have become tougher and involve more hazardous environments.
My take is that NASA's approach to science missions is deeply flawed. Any serious exploration of space is going to require space probes with development cycles of say four years or less. There are two big problems with longer development cycles. First, the longer the project, the more likely that it'll be redesigned, have funding trouble, or be cancelled. If you can get the development to launch in under 4 years, then you can launch missions under the same administration. Second, long development cycles greatly reduce how fast you can react to new information. If you find out something interesting but not currently in the schedule, it's unacceptable to have to wait another ten years or more before another probe can be sent to investigate this. You are wasting a lot of peoples' time.
Then we get to robustness. Currently, NASA launches expensive one off missions that are pretty robust as a single unit, but don't take advantage of economies of scale. My take is a few highly robust missions are more expensive for the data gained and dollars spent than a large number of cheaper, less robust missions. And that's including the higher failure rate of the less robust missions. There are various tricks. Instead of making one or two probes, you can make three to ten. Instead of building probes from scratch, work on developing a suite of "off the shelf" infrastructure and instruments so you can put together a probe for a particular mission fast. Also, I think that a counterintuitive result is that an organization which launches a lot of cheap probes is eventually going to get those to be more reliable than the organization which continues to launch a few, highly "robust" probes. The reason is that a lot of probes means a lot of exploration both of failure modes for those probes and data on the harsh environments that these probes end up in. While the "robust" probe makers don't know what they're up against and have to overengineer their probes.
Parent
Re:what the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife, dian, who led the propellants team, got her team together, and told them they *would* think Pioneer and Voyager in all their work.
mark
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you're expecting the Martians to tag all the cameras and then tip over the probe soonish?
In three months time the probe will be underneath the north polar ice cap and the mission will be over. Additionally the TEGA instrument has developed a wiring fault and may become totally unusable soon. [arizona.edu]
Not everyone is as worked up over Phoenix as you seem to be.
I agree. This whole space exploration thing has become quite passe.
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
Personally I find it strange that a member of the Mars Phoenix team left the project while the vehicle was still operating on Mars [arizona.edu], and that the most of the team are taking the July 4 holiday off [arizona.edu] as if Phoenix will still be there in a years time.
With regards to the first post, the author is apparently a master's student who has completed his degree and is now leaving. More specifically, he's interested in science education and while I confess I'm not sure what E/PO Coordinator & Evaluator stands for, there's a good chance (with his background) that it means Education/Public Outreach. In which case its not a critical position and his leaving, if it was already planned (which it seems to have been), this is not a serious issue.
As for taking the weekend off, the people on the project have probably been working almost continuously ever since Phoenix landed. If they take 2 days off out of 90 its not the end of the world.
Parent
Re:what the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Authorized? What exactly would NASA/whomever have talked about when they were deciding this?
The people controlling: the budget for paying the salaries of the technicians supporting the mission, paying for costs of equipment and its upkeep, scheduling of necessary assets on this end of the telemetry chain and a lot of other things.
Ultimately, it's up to the President and Congress as ultimate budget-makers, but I bet it only needed a cursory nod from higher-ups at NASA in this case.
No money means no listening. The people in charge of the Cassini mission can't exactly dig into their own pockets to keep it going ("My uncle has this old deep space radio network, and Bobby's dad has a fully staffed mission control center he's not using...").
Thankfully, it's not that hard to get those controlling the purse strings to spring for additional funding when you can point to what you've already done and tell them the probe is still good to go and that you're still getting outstanding results. There's also the unwritten rule where you more or less can be sure of automatic approval for extension if the probe is still going after the initial "planned" lifetime- the two Mars Rovers a perfect case in point.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Good question. It's not just a computer recording information in a back room at NASA, I would guess quite a bit more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Operating the spacecraft, and especially the ground equipment and staff, requires money. That HAS to be authorised.
NASA's funds being stretched to a minimum, every bit of expense has to be scrutinized. If something isn't worthwhile, it's ditched.
Saturn Trek (Score:3, Funny)
Its five^Wfour-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Not bad. It completed 2 of the 3 objectives.
2 out of 3? (Score:2)
Not bad. It completed 2 of the 3 objectives.
Explored strange new worlds? Check
Boldly gone where no man has gone before? Check
See out new life and civilizations? Check (If the mission was to find new life, it failed miserably. But it doesn't have to find any to complete the mission as stated.
incredible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:incredible (Score:4, Interesting)
They learned it from Scotty.
The classic case was on the Voyager Grand Tour. Voyager 2 was only 'designed' to go to Jupiter and Saturn. But the scientists and engineers doing the designing wanted it to also go to Uranus and Neptune. Once Voyager 1 successfully completed its flyby of Titan, the operations managers of Voyager 2 requested permission to skip that encounter with Voyager 2 so that they could do a gravity assist maneuver to go to Uranus.
Parent
Re:incredible (Score:5, Informative)
That would be 'mostly correct'. Voyager 2 was the backup for Voyager 1, but it was planned from fairly early on that if Voyager 1 sucessfully flew by Titan (and thus completed the primary mission of Voyager 1/2) then Voyager 2 would be diverted to Uranus and Neptune.
Parent
Re:incredible (Score:5, Informative)
The actual timing of that option was after the Voyager program was funded for two 4 year missions (as Mariner 10 and 11). The engineers ensured that the spacecraft were capable of 12 years missions so that the Grand Tour would be an option. The original Grand Tour option was 4 spacecraft with 2 Jupiter-Saturn-Titan flybys and 2 gas giant-ice giant tours (with one potentially being sent directly to Pluto). This was rejected for funding issues (along with the NERVA program) in favor of fully funding the Viking program. The Voyager program after much public outcry ended up with 2 cheaper probes to flyby Jupiter and Saturn with special emphasis on studying Titan. After Voyager 1 survived its cross plane maneuver and flyby of Titan, permission was granted to perform a Grand Tour with Voyager 2.
Parent
Re:incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I am waiting for you Cassini! (Score:2)
You told me to go back to the beginning, so I have.
How much fuel (propellant) is left? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've looked all over the Cassini web site and I can't seem to find out anything that says how much fuel is left. Not the plutonium in the RTGs (that should last another decade or so) but rather the (bi-propellant?) in the main fuel tanks or the (mono-propellant? hydrazine?) used in the thrusters.
Not only is the lack of thruster propellant typically what ends the life of otherwise useful satellites (Cassini is not spin stabilized so attitude correction is ultimately performed by the thrusters) but in addition to keeping Cassini pointed in the right direction, it REQUIRES a significant (compared to most space probes), delta-v capability. This is because it must be able to change its trajectory to take advantage of gravity assist from Titan, if it cannot precisely hit the "window" it is aiming for, it will be sent into a totally different (and unrecoverable) orbit. (Of course if it were not for the "space billiards" gravity assist maneuvers there is no way Cassini would have been able to achieve more than a tiny fraction of its current mission. This, to me is the most impressive and gratifying part of the entire mission).
These relatively large changes in delta-v are what Cassini needs its two main engines for (one's a backup). Unfortunately due to a mistake in design, Cassini had to unexpectedly use up about a third(?) of its propellant because it had to carry the Huygens probe into Saturn orbit with it (rather than releasing it on its inbound trajectory). This was because the engineers neglected to design the radio to handle the large doppler shift that would have occurred had Cassini whizzed by on its hyperbolic trajectory before the orbital insertion burn while Huygens slowly parachuted to Titan's surface. By decelerating Cassini into Saturn orbit, THEN releasing the probe they were able to receive MOST of the data transmitted (another goof lost one channel) so it saved that part of the mission but at the expense of fuel.
Now if the orbital planners have been very careful (are you reading this Sherman? ;) they may have been able to use less fuel than planned by being very accurate with their burns. So the question is: What will run out first? The main propellant used for orbital changes or the hydrazine used for attitude adjustments? (Also remember that Cassini doesn't have a separate instrument platform so every instrument pointing activity requires turning the entire spacecraft, most of this is done with reaction wheels but there is friction and sometimes the wheels must be desaturated).
Or is something else going to run out first? (Kodak film, videotape, mailing envelopes, postage stamps ;) Or am I completely wrong about this? (Perhaps they've figured out how to use Saturn's magnetic field to help stabilize the spacecraft).
I hope that after this mission extension (and the next) they'll do something really crazy like use up a ton of fuel for a really really risky low slow flyby THROUGH the rings. Imagine seeing thousands and thousands of boulder-to-mountain sized rocks in a vast plain far as the eye can see with Saturn looming in the background! Just like the paintings by Chesley Bonestell (and lots of science fiction shows like Voyager). Good science too.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that after this mission extension (and the next) they'll do something really crazy like use up a ton of fuel for a really really risky low slow flyby THROUGH the rings.
A couple months ago the community started talking about doing exactly that, at the end of mission.
Well.... (Score:2)
I guess this beats crashing it into something to check out the big plume of debris! :-D
An estimate of "how much propellent's left" (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife dian, who was in charge of the propellants on Cassini-Huygens (and won one of NASA's highest achievement awards for that work), tells me that yes, it's hydrazine, and though she has no access to those records these days (a *very* unamicable parting of the ways), estimates that there might be a year's left, if they don't need to do too much maneuvering.
She notes that there was a *fuck* of a lot of propellant, which is why it needed a Titan IV-b, a *big* rocket.
mark