Glitch Halts New Horizons Operations As It Nears Pluto 107
An anonymous reader writes: NASA says their New Horizons probe suffered a temporary communication breakdown on Saturday, 10 days before it's supposed to fly past Pluto. The mission team is working to restore normal communications. "Full recovery is expected to take from one to several days," NASA wrote in a status report on Saturday. "New Horizons will be temporarily unable to collect science data during that time."
Oh, PLEASE no... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been going so well for such a long time. It will be absolutely heartbreaking if the probe is incapacitated just during the flyby window.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Pretty please, new horizons/NASA?
Re:Oh, PLEASE no... (Score:5, Informative)
From T(rather brief)FA:
The “encounter program” includes software to prohibit the very type of automated safe mode that New Horizons executed Saturday afternoon.
“Encounter mode short-circuits the on board intelligent autopilot so that if something goes wrong, instead of calling home for help, which is what most spacecraft do and what New Horizons does during cruise flight, it will just stay on the timeline. It will try to fix the problem, but it will rejoin the timeline because if it ‘went fetal,’ as we say, if it just called home for help, it could miss the flyby,” New Horizons lead scientist Alan Stern told Discovery News before Saturday’s problem.
Re: (Score:1)
But, it also says, "The 'encounter program' includes software to prohibit the very type of automated safe mode that New Horizons executed Saturday afternoon."
That implies it did go into a waiting "safe mode" instead of an auto-science mode, for unknown reasons.
Re:Oh, PLEASE no... (Score:5, Informative)
The article is too scant. Here [planetary.org]'s a better one.
Re: Oh, PLEASE no... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectually bankrupt? (Score:1)
The ones who are truly intellectually bankrupted, aka 'The sheeples ', believe in every single thing the authority tells them
Baaaaaaaaah ....
Re: (Score:2)
Let's posit for a moment that New Horizons (launched January 2006) did just overtake MH370 (disappeared March 2014) and the lost plane is actually on an escape trajectory out of the solar system.
Then losing connection with the probe isn't a big deal. We'll just whip up another one add in the propulsion technology on MH370 and we'll have another probe at Pluto in about a year and a half.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Memory problem perhaps? (Score:5, Funny)
Since this is slashdot, how about pseudocode?
function handle_fault_on_approach()
{
if (NOTHING_PARTICULARLY_SPECIAL_GOING_ON)
{
tell_nasa about_error();
go_into_safe_mode();
wait_for_instructions_from_nasa();
}
else if (FLYING_BY_PLUTO_RIGHT_NOW)
{
tell_nasa about_error();
wait_to_hear_back_from_nasa = FALSE;
handle_error_in_a_reasonable_manner_on_your_own();
get_back_to_gathering_before_you_miss_the_flyby_goddammit();
}
else if (FLYING_BY_EARTH)
{
dammit_steve(); [xkcd.com]
}
}
Re:Memory problem perhaps? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't have any knowledge specific to this project, but I'll give you my interpretation:
The engineers programmed the on-board software to know approximately what the spacecraft should be doing at certain times. New Horizons uses on-board fuel to spin up so that it can more reliably transmit information back to Earth. However, it cannot take pictures while spinning, so it'll have to spin-down. In an "everything's fine" scenario, there will be set times for it to spin up, transmit its data, spin down, capture more data, etc. That's the default timeline.
In previous spacecraft, if something has gone wrong, then the default response was to "stop and wait for further instructions". The idea was that doing "something" could be worse than doing "nothing" and waiting for a human to figure out the best course of action. In other words, it "went fetal".
Pluto is a tad far away, and signals take about 4.5 hours each way. So, a minimum of 9 hours would be required for a response to a problem, not including engineer problem solving and implementation time. That's long enough that the spacecraft may miss the window of ideal picture taking time while waiting for a response, assuming one ever arrives. What it'll likely do in this case is carry on with the mission, and only after it has acquired the flyby data will it call back home and—in Windows parlance—check for updates.
BAD DESIGN NASA (Score:2)
Why not make the craft in such a way so that when it points in dish to earth, its camera can still point to pluto, heres a tip, how about install TWO cameras with 180deg fov, and then you will never miss your target.
Heres a clue, how about a motorized lens that can rotate the camera or lens or whatever.
Heres another clue, design an ultimate design thats fit for any planet/flyby, a generic all purpose best of all situations craft, with plugin addons for specific sensors.
Stop redesigning from scratch each cra
The encounter sequence will disable safe mode (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Since they only have one shot at the flyby, the New Horizons web site states that the encounter sequence they are uploading will disable the safe mode and instruct the probe to return to the timeline sequence.
It's a hail mary attempt, it switched for some reason and they will be putting in back into that mode and no out. subject: "Can I just say On Behalf Of Humanity", seems the most relevant word at this time.
multitask anyone? (Score:2)
Why cant the sensors have their own memory, and record data, regardless of what the state of the main computer is.
Each sensor should have its own cpu/OS/storage/backup battery. Main computer can just access each sensors data via http, over internal ethernet (backup wifi), and repackage up to send to earth, while the sensors can keep recording at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Those do not convey as much information. "Sh*t" not only says as much as "problem" or "anomaly" would about the observed state, but also says something about the state of the observer. "Sh^t" is therefore the more concise-- and eloquent-- word.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think 'anomaly' or 'problem' are the words I'd use as there is at times humorous attempt by agencies/contractors to use such terms to describe totally catastrophic failures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
"Snafu"
From Unmannedspaceflight.com (Score:5, Informative)
Link [unmannedspaceflight.com]
Alan Stern is the director of the New Horizons mission. So no worries. :) You can see that two way communication is in progress here [nasa.gov] at the Canberra dish.
This was a really minor glitch and will have no impact on the mission as a whole. There weren't even any significant observations [planetary.org] planned for today.
(As a side note, the closer we get to Pluto and the more we see of it [unmannedspaceflight.com] (dark band at the bottom is around the equator), the more it's starting to remind me of an airless Titan [wikimedia.org] :) )
Re:From Unmannedspaceflight.com (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh and for the record: Stern calls Pluto a planet, and makes some very [space.com] good [space.com] arguments [discovery.com].
And I'll add more that he doesn't make (though his are best!): it's ridiculous to call something a "dwarf X" and then say that that doesn't count as an "X". In any other field of science, if you had an "adjective-noun", it would also be classified as a "noun". If you have a dwarf shrew, it's also a shrew. If you have a dwarf fern, it's also a fern. Heck, even in the same field, astronomy, the same rule applies - a dwarf star is also a star.
Under the IAU definition, extrasolar planets aren't planets either. They don't even have a name - they're not anything at all. Not like we'd be able to classify them under the definition without dispatching a spacecraft all the way to each different star system even if they weren't excluded. The IAU definition also claims that they will create a system to establish more dwarf planets - something that clearly has not been done. There hasn't been a new dwarf planet accepted in nearly a decade, despite the fact that we know the sizes of many of them better than already-accepted candidates were known at the time. Quaoar is much bigger than Ceres, and we know it's size down to a mere 5 kilometers margin of error, yet it's not a dwarf planet. The IAU not only made up their ridiculous definition, but they're not even upholding it.
As with pretty much every categorization of object in pretty much every field of science, you need heirarchies and multiple groupings to describe the world. Among planets, we already know of significant diversity, and should only expect it to grow - hence we have terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, hot jupiters, super earths, etc, and yes, dwarf planets - which should be just another category among the significant diversity already out there. Everyone knows a planet when they see it - you don't have to scan its orbit to see if it's "cleared" it, with some still-not-yet-agreed-upon definition of "cleared". If it's large enough to relax into a hydrostatic equilibrium, that's both meaningful, intuitive, and what people expect when they hear the word "planet". By any reasonable definition, our solar system has at least dozens, potentially hundreds of planets. And that should be seen as something to celebrate, not to be appalled about.
Re:From Unmannedspaceflight.com (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'll add more that he doesn't make (though his are best!): it's ridiculous to call something a "dwarf X" and then say that that doesn't count as an "X".
Is a toy car actually a car? Is a stuffed animal actually an animal?
Re: (Score:3)
And more than that, a "toy car" is a toy. Car is describing the type of toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Then my favorite example: fool's gold. Is this a type of gold?
Re: (Score:1)
Then my favorite example: fool's gold. Is this a type of gold?
Fool's Gold is the layman term/nickname for Iron Pyrite... and it is indeed a type of iron. Not the best comparison :)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is it really is gold... if you are a fool. It is named this because it looks like gold, but only a fool would think that. Many other things have names that are references to what they look like: Lamb's Foot ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) isn't a lamb or a foot, but it is named because it resembles one, Queen Anne's Lace ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) is neither a Queen, nor an Anne, nor any manner of lace, etc.
Toy car is really a *car toy*- a type of toy shaped like a car. A "dwa
Re: (Score:2)
Then my favorite example: fool's gold.
Ah, yes, the definitive scientific term for pyrite/iron sulfide. /sarc
It's interesting how unscientific the arguments are for claiming a dwarf planet is not a planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Pluto is a model of something?
Is a pygmy owl still an owl? [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's your opinion. There's no formally adopted definition to that effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because ignorant people use a word to mean something different, does not change the meaning of the word.
On the other hand, if you want to talk to someone you have to talk in their language. That does not mean you have to adopt their language for all communications, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Sun-Jupiter system should just barely count as a binary object. But not a binary star because Jupiter isn't a star.
Re: (Score:2)
...so by that logic, Jupiter is a dwarf sun, which makes it neither a planet, nor a sun. I guess it just defies classification...
Re: (Score:2)
1) "Sun" isn't a classification, it's just a name.
2) If you meant "dwarf star", Jupiter isn't a star.
3) I assume you meant "binary star", not dwarf. Again, see #2.
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, anyone who does not call Pluto a planet is a pedophile.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A letter that opens with:
Also, it's a poorly worded letter - they wrote "the team is now working to return New Horizons to its original flight plan", which of course is going to make people think it's going to drift off course or something. Obviously, physics does not work that way. Even if New Horizons exploded today, it's
Re: (Score:2)
So not obviously.
Orbital mechanics is very non-intuitive. And all science fiction movies get it wrong, even Eu
Re: (Score:1)
The whole Intersteller thing with love being the 5th dimension? Yeah... About that? I think we can stop calling it science fiction and just call it fiction. Additionally? It seemed like they used a hat to pull out a standard plot line, three standard tropes/plot twists, and five real bits of science that they did not actually understand. Then they wrote a horrific story to combine them and, of course, had to throw in an entirely absurd premise (love beats physics) because, otherwise, everybody is dead. Then
rumored root cause (Score:1)
Java update.
I speak for all slashdotters when I say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Aliens (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't recall those as being radiation hardened. There is the idea of using multiple COTS chips with the extras being for fail-over but then you have the added weight which really does matter.
Confused (Score:1)
New Horizons was launched with mission instructions to proceed beyond Neptune's orbit and look for the next planet.
Nope. No planets here.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call it when something has a simple, obvious answer, and someone suggests instead a pointlessly complex and ridiculous alternative? Occam's Trash Can?
Re:Local problems? [Hacked] (Score:1)
Kim Jong-un's face on Charon with his tongue sticking out does look suspicious.
Re: (Score:1)
What do you call it when something has a simple, obvious answer, and someone suggests instead a pointlessly complex and ridiculous alternative? Occam's Trash Can?
Just because it may be "pointlessly complex and ridiculous" does not mean it is not true. It just means it is somewhat less likely.
Murphys Law rules, "likelyhood" is of no use in troubleshooting. 8-)
Here's what's really going on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is it this time??
Re: (Score:1)
You sir, won the internet yesterday. I am behind the times. However, it took me a minute and then I finally read your name. Too funny.
I can relate (Score:2)
Reminds me of my calculus final exam back in the day where my HP calculator started flickering and rebooting 4 minutes before the exam.
I'll tell you the rest after the Pluto encounter...
UPDATE: NASA issued a statement - it's good. (Score:5, Informative)
UPDATE: NASA issued a statement at about 19:30 PT / 22:30 ET July 5 / 02:30 UT July 6 saying that the cause of the safe mode is understood, and that New Horizons will resume science operations on July 7:
NASA’s New Horizons mission is returning to normal science operations after a July 4 anomaly and remains on track for its July 14 flyby of Pluto.
The investigation into the anomaly that caused New Horizons to enter “safe mode” on July 4 has concluded that no hardware or software fault occurred on the spacecraft. The underlying cause of the incident was a hard-to-detect timing flaw in the spacecraft command sequence that occurred during an operation to prepare for the close flyby. No similar operations are planned for the remainder of the Pluto encounter.
“I’m pleased that our mission team quickly identified the problem and assured the health of the spacecraft,” said Jim Green, NASA’s Director of Planetary Science. “Now – with Pluto in our sights – we’re on the verge of returning to normal operations and going for the gold.”
http://www.planetary.org/blogs... [planetary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to hear that NASA can still do science properly!
Re: (Score:2)