Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Deep Space One Mission Comes To An End 160

Posted by Hemos from the playing-taps dept.
jfoust writes "NASA's Deep Space One mission will officially end this week, according to published reports. The spacecraft was launched over three years ago to test advanced technologies like ion drives and, despite the failure of its star tracker, was able to make a successful flyby of the comet Borrelly in September. The project tried to extend the mission by several months to fly by an asteroid, but could not coax the funding needed for the mission extension out of NASA. There's a short summary about the mission's end at spacetoday.net, and more details from the AP and the JPL Universe employee newspaper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deep Space One Mission Comes To An End More

Deep Space One Mission Comes To An End

Comments Filter:

  • slow progress (Score:3, Funny)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:35AM (#2713550)
    At this rate it'll take forever to get to Deep Space Nine.
  • Jeez, I hope they don't let those ION drives go to waste, Im sure the /.'ers could make good use of them.
    • Jeez, I hope they don't let those ION drives go to waste, Im sure the /.'ers could make good use of them.
      Sure. Anybody who's interested can have them. You just have to fetch them yourself :)
  • does anyone know how the Ion Drives performed?

    • Re:Ion Drives (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mastagunna ( 251788 )
      They actually performed better then expect, that is why they tried to extend the use of it. DS1 was basicially designed to fire then crash, but it worked so well, the continued to use it.

  • I'm a bit ignorant, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wire Tap ( 61370 ) <frisina@nOsPaM.atlanticbb.net> on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:40AM (#2713569)
    ... one of the articles reads that they can't keep the project in operation for another year due to the failure to appropriate the several million dollars necessary from NASA. I wonder: what do they need _that_ much money for? Aside from the people to work on the project (how many does it really take?) and the transmission capabilities (how much power can it comsume?) what other _real_ costs are there?

    I am not too experienced in this area, but I often wonder why it costs so much to keep something like this going.

    • Time on dishes (Score:5, Informative)

      by freeweed ( 309734 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:58AM (#2713623)
      Dish time can be hideously expensive, and keep in mind your average home pizza dish doesn't quite cut the mustard in communicating with a small transponder millions of miles away.

      For example, there are many people who would willingly donate their time and expertise to the SETI program. But for years they had to fight for funding. Why? Radio telescope time doesn't come cheap. And building your own isn't exactly feasible, either.

      • Dish time can be hideously expensive, and keep in mind your average home pizza dish doesn't quite cut the mustard in communicating with a small transponder millions of miles away.

        Not only is Deep Space Network time expensive, it is hard to come by. The DSN serves a number of NASA missions, requiring a lot of careful scheduling to make sure each mission gets the DSN time it needs (if not what it wants.) The situation will only get worse in the next few years, as even more missions, from Cassini to a pair of Mars rovers, compete for scarce DSN time.

      • (* Dish time can be hideously expensive, and keep in mind your average home pizza dish doesn't quite cut the mustard in communicating with a small transponder millions of miles away. *)

        What if every geek focused a pizza dish or parabola-shaped aluminum foil dishes at the craft?

        Some OSS fans can make the software and instructions on how to hook them up? The hardest part could be pointing the dishes as the earth moves. Perhaps the directions can be split up into "sky slices"?
    • Ok its flying along in space, so how does that justify need for cash? I'm confused. Was it manned? Are we paying the astronauts wife?
      what? Why does it take a million dollars for everything we do at Nasa?????? Why can kids build soda can satalites for 20$ and Nasa build soda can satalites for 20 million? whats the damn difference hehehe....

      j/k

      • Re: why does it cost money? (Score:4, Informative)

        by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @12:11PM (#2715017) Homepage
        Ok its flying along in space, so how does that justify need for cash? I'm confused. Was it manned? Are we paying the astronauts wife?

        It's not manned, but it doesn't fly itself. That requires ground based controllers (the mission operations folks) plus some expensive time using the Deep Space Network dishes (as others have mentioned already). The mission ops center is not exactly free either. Throw in some project management people, PR folks, and the scientists that are actually doing the extended mission, and the bill starts to add up.

        No one's saying "if you don't give us money, DS1 will stop flying". What they're saying is "if you don't give us money, we can't continue to operate DS1 and collect data from it, so it'll fly along doing nothing" (seems like kind of a waste, doens't it?).

        Why does it take a million dollars for everything we do at Nasa?????? Why can kids build soda can satalites for 20$ and Nasa build soda can satalites for 20 million? whats the damn difference

        While I have no particular wish to defend NASA, they are not entirely at fault here. There're two reasons that NASA spacecraft cost so much:

        (1) They are far more complicated, ambitious, and longer-lived than their student-built counterparts. NASA spacecraft operate in extreme conditions, doing unprecedented work, for years at a time. They have to work, so they are designed to be robust, redundant, and fault-tolerant. Trust me, this doesn't come cheap - and NASA's got a lot better at making it cheap in the last few years.
        Student-built satellites typically don't do much (a couple of minor experiments), although there are some neat things on the way (Three-corner sat for example). More importantly, student sats don't have to last as long, they only go to LEO, and no one cares if they fail. That means cheaper parts, less redundancy, and a simpler design.

        (2) NASA also has to contend with the whole government appropriations issue. The best way to get congressional support is to have your program spend a little money in a bunch of different states. Let's face it, a large, arbitrarily distributed project (split up for political rather than technical reasons) is likely to cost more than the same project carried out in one central location. Plus NASA has to carry out all sorts of PR functions, and otherwise impress Joe Q. Public so that their budget doesn't get axed completely.

        Which is not to say that NASA couldn't do better. They've done some pretty stupid things at times, and taken some enormous risks. On other hand, they've also done some pretty amazing stuff. NASA's biggest problems are corrosive bureaucracy, unrealistic project management, and congress.

        If you really want a national space program to be proud of, write your congress-person. Don't say "Give NASA more money". Just say "Get off NASA's back, and let it do its job without having to pay a political bribe to everyone on congress. Ask for results, not for some concession for your home state. This is a national space program".

        • While I have no particular wish to defend NASA, they are not entirely at fault here. There're two reasons that NASA spacecraft cost so much:

          The big reason is that the Internation Space Station, way over budget, is sucking money out of other programs like a black hole.

          It's sad that the political boondogle (ISS) to explore the most boring place in the Solar System (low-Earth orbit, been there done that)is killing off other, more interesting and cost-effective projects.

          --Iz
          • The ISS budget doesn't affect the cost of other projects, just the supply of money available to fund them. NASA spacecraft do cost a lot more than their student-built brethren, which is what the original post was about.

            ISS is expensive because it is a political football with no clear mission. It exists to put dollars into the aerospace industries of as many different states as possible. Its secondary goal is to involve the rest of the world (this is the "international" part) in the space game - probably partly so they don't do space stuff themselves and accidentally generate a ballistic missile capability. Somewhere further down the list of goals is stuff like a continued manned presence in space, and performing useful science.

            I do agree that it's sad that ISS sucks money from other, more worthy projects.

    • In Nasa terms several million isn't really all that much (which makes it slightly surprising why they cut off funding). Still I would argue that the extra costs could be fully accounted through saleries of personnel and cost of communicating with the craft. Ignoring the undoubtedly huge saleries many likely make there is also the possibility that they may need new hardware to communicate with the craft. I would assume that their existing hardware may be already allocated to other missions and they may not have the satellites available to communicate with the craft.

  • Success (Score:4, Insightful)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:41AM (#2713574)
    I think it is easy to rate this mission as a great success. If I recall correctly it used something like 9 new technologies including the ion drive and AI. Considering the fact that it continued for 2 years longer than it was designed for (and probably could have gone for longer if they'd gotten the additional funding) says great things about the advancements in space exploration and lends the possibility to deep space exploration on a level significantly higher than what we could previously achieve.

    • Re:Success (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fymidos ( 512362 )
      Success indeed, but the point is that space won't be really explored untill it becomes profitable.

      If only those old Scrooge McDuck stories about moons made of gold were true :)
      • Actually, I thought it wasn't Moon that was made of gold, but the other, smaller moon hidden by the one closer to ours?
        • yes, i believe you are correct. And, i recall the same idea in another story where scrooge finds a planet made of gold and buys it for a handfull of dirt :))
      • If only those old Scrooge McDuck stories about moons made of gold were true :)

        The sad part is that even if there was a moon out there made of solid gold, currently it still would be too expensive to go up and mine it. Space launches are EXPENSIVE.

  • Funding? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:42AM (#2713582)
    Cannot coax the funding out of Nasa?
    What funding?
    How do you need "funding" to send signals to an already launched, 30year spacecraft? Just press the keys!
    Seriously, if you can't "fund" it, give me the docs and I'll do the damn mission! And I bet there are many, more qualified people, who would do the same.

    • Re:Funding? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Glytch ( 4881 )
      Time on the Deep Space Network, the pay for the engineers who operate the spacecraft, the pay for the scientists who study the data, etc, etc, etc. I dunno if I'm feeding a troll or not but I'm tired right now and I'm half asleep and I don't care.

  • This is socialism in action (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CommunistTroll ( 544327 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @01:43AM (#2713588) Homepage
    The end of this successful mission should bring our minds back to the fact that this was only possible through government funding and control.

    Pure capitalism would never be able to make these bold steps into the future.

    If we were to spend more time organising ourselves rationally through our government, and less time irrationally competing to produce slightly differently branded soft drinks, we would by now have a colony on Mars...
    • Pure capitalism would never be able to make these bold steps into the future.

      Well pure capitalism might not, but the American model in place in the 1960s, of capitalism mixed with a highly funded governmental research program, would seem to have out-performed the pure communist approach of the other side.

    • Much like the russians did, eh? I don't recall any russian Mars colonies...

      Socialism, or even moreso communism, relies too heavily on the assumption that people WANT to contribute to the government pot for its own sake. If people wanted to do that, we could easily finance a private (or government funded) space program, under any system of government.

      The difference is, under socialism/communism, you don't have a CHOICE where your money goes. At least in theory, US citizens do. In russia, if you didn't like what the government did, you were shot.

      Then again, there are a lot of people out there who don't like making their own minds up...

      • Re:This is socialism in action (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Corgha ( 60478 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @04:08AM (#2713865)
        If people wanted to do that, we could easily finance a private (or government funded) space program, under any system of government.

        It is worth noting that there are some important differences between private and government-funded space programs (read: "allow me to rant in a half-asleep stupor for a while"). While I happily contribute whatever small percentage of my income taxes goes to NASA, and wish that percentage were greater, I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way about giving that same amount of money to some private space program.

        First of all, at least NASA is to some degree accountable and is unlikely to go out of business, taking my money with it. When I look around at Excite and Enron and all sorts of other companies starting with 'E' that have flushed their shareholders' money down the toilet over the past few years in (relatively) down-to-earth businesses, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable giving money to some firm whose business plan consisted of space exploration. NASA may not do everything exactly how I would like them to, but at least they get something up into space every once in a while (which is more than can be said for, say, the Rotary Rocket corporation).

        Second, were I to give some money to a private space exploration initiative, it would be a necessarily individual act. If no one else contributed, I'd feel like a sucker, and might even feel a little resentment about the affair. Have you ever been the first one to step forward out of a line and volunteer for some unpleasant task? It's a real scary feeling that quickly becomes less scary if others start stepping up. For public initiatives, there is none of that anxiety, and there is something good about knowing that we're all in it together (darn pesky emotions). Now, tax policy is a matter for another time, but at least I know that most people are contributing something, even if it's not the same amount.

        The things that NASA does are things that we can all be proud of, because they are things we, the public, were all involved. I, for one, would like to see them keep doing them (and more of them), because people will, years from now, probably remember what Neil Armstrong said when he landed on the Moon a lot better than they will remember all the other crap we worry about.

        That's about all I can think up at this hour, but I guess what I'm trying to say is this: For some things (and for now I think space exploration is one of them), public initiatives are a good thing precisely because they are public. Space exploration might not happen as much without NASA, and in my mind, that would suck.

        Sometimes government-funded initiatives are not a bad thing -- those who feel otherwise can build their own rockets and launch themselves somewhere where they won't have to worry about the Man anymore. ;)
      • Much like the russians did, eh? I don't recall any russian Mars colonies...

        Considering the Soviets were the ONLY nation that successfully landed a probe on Venus, I wouldn't totally write off their contributions to space exploration.

        The difference is, under socialism/communism, you don't have a CHOICE where your money goes. At least in theory, US citizens do. In russia, if you didn't like what the government did, you were shot

        Well realistically I (as an individual) don't have any control over what the govement does with my tax money, so (as you say) - this is in theory. You can get shot in the US too if you don't like what the government does. Go run around Area 51 waving your arms around and see if you get shot. You might, you might not - it sort of depends on if the guards are cranky because of bad coffee.

        I'm done nit-picking now.
    • The problem with that is that you have to organise RATIONALLY through the government, and the government is made up of the same idiots that can't keep a pure capitalism on track.
      • Bzzzt. Pure capitalism doesn't get "kept on track". If you "keep it on track", it's being controlled, and therefore isn't pure.

        As a side note, pure capitalism is a flawed concept and doesn't (and never has) worked in the real world.
    • Well, you can't really give socialism all the credit: One could argue that under pure capitalism, we would already have a moon shuttle service underway, several lunar hotels, AND a colony on Mars. It could be said that if the government had not forcibly dominated the space sector, and had left the development of space technology completely to the private sector, the promise of $20 million paying customers would have induced entrepreneurs to invest there. Big profits and growth would have made it a flourishing branch of the economy.

      No matter how successful and unsung socialism may be in this day and age, there will always be an excuse to be capitalist.

    • If we were to spend more time organising ourselves rationally through our government, and less time irrationally competing to produce slightly differently branded soft drinks, we would by now have a colony on Mars...

      if we really spend more time organizing ourselves rationally through our government etc a colony on mars would be unecessary because the Earth would be a nice place to live...
  • Obviously, it must be interesting to work at NASA, even more so when working on a project like this. Reading Mr. Rayman's post about the end of the mission, comparing it to the death of his grandfather, and giving what came across as a eulogy, you can really tell they treat their projects as members of the family. It has a similarity to child birth as well: Creating and bringing a new explorer into the world, setting it free, watching it explore, feeling a sense of pride for it's accomplisments and then watching painfully as the end of it's life draws near. I wonder if NASA employees have a history of neglected or beaten children. "God damnit Bobby! Your brother is up there taking pictures of asteroids, and you can manage to ride a tricycle!"

    Now all they need to do is make eight more probes to produce Deep Space 9. Hell, if it blows up on liftoff it'll still be more interesting then the series.
  • Can't they set up a listening post to at least gather anything that it sends back? I mean, that's an expensive project to only use for 3 years and just toss into space somewhere.

    • It hasn't been a waste. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cardinal ( 311 )
      DS1 was actually part of NASA's cheaper/faster program. They tested a whole slew of totally new technologies, put it on a (relatively) cheap probe, and off it went.

      As for using it as a listening post, I'd be very surprised if it had any equipment onboard to be of much use. It's got a finite amount of manuevering propellant, which is required to point an antenna at the Earth to send back whatever does manage to collect. If it hasn't run out yet, it will after not too long. Finally, there has to be a staff planetside to tell the probe what to do, when to send back data, etc. That's salaries and equipment that's better spent elsewhere.

      So, no, it wasn't a waste of money. They set out to test new approaches, almost all of them worked fantastically. And after they completed the intended mission, they went off and did another one. There's nothing more it can do that'd be worth the trouble.

      The time and money was well spent, I'd say, but it's done now. Look back on its accomplishments with pride, and look forward to the projects that will benefit from the results.
  • Why would it need more funding to continue it's mission?
    It's already in space, it's not like their going to
    fly out and give it more fuel. Am I missing
    something obvious? *shrug* half asleep here. G'nite

  • Remote Control (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @02:06AM (#2713648) Homepage
    How much is it to buy a DS1 remote control? I would love to have that for Christmas. Maybe they should auction off control of it.

    "Cool, look ma! I got my very own deep space probe!"
    "That's nice dear..."

  • Question about XIPS engines (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @02:07AM (#2713652) Homepage Journal
    The ion drive aboard the DS1 broke several records with its stellar (literally) tortiose-vs-hare performance. Does anyone know if this technology has any potential for being adapted to the ISS? Due to friction with the upper atmosphere, ISS is constantly losing altitude, necessitating frequent boosts using the Shuttle or a Progress vehicle to keep it on station (pardon the weak pun). A constantly-updated graph of its altitude variations [heavens-above.com] is hosted on Heavens-Above. [heavens-above.com]

    Anyway, does anyone know if ion engines of the type used on DS1 would be effective in allowing the ISS to maintain altitude, or could they at least reduce its rate of orbital decay enough to justify the power expenditure?
    • I'm not all informed about this, but if I recollect correctly the ion engine on DS1 will not provide much more thrust than your breath, its actual power being that it can keep this breath steady nonstop without consuming alot of energy . With almost no friction or gravity in deep space, it will accellerate all the time.

      I suppose this is less effective in the ISS scenario.

      I'd be glad to stand corrected ;)
      • Exactly the way I understood this as well. The propulsion provided on the DS1 probe was suited to continuous operation over a long period of time, resulting in gradual, continuous acceleration of a very small craft using a very small amount of thrust.

        http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html [nasa.gov]

        Under the circumstances for which ion propulsion is appropriate, it can push a spacecraft up to about ten times as fast as chemical propulsion. Because the ion propulsion system, although highly efficient, is very gentle in its thrust, it cannot be used for any application in which a rapid acceleration is required. With patience, the ion propulsion system on DS1 imparts about 3.6 km/s to the spacecraft. To undertake the same mission with a chemical propulsion system would require a more expensive launch vehicle and a larger spacecraft to accommodate a large tank for the chemical propellants.

        You need the opposite to boost the ISS - a large amount of thrust in a short period of time to move a very large object.
        • Just because we currently use large-force short-duration burns to maintain ISS orbit doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. Perhaps we can get someone trained in orbital mechanics to comment on the amount of energy being lost due to friction with the atmosphere? The ISS has a lot more area to mount motors on and has a lot more power available to run them. If the motors ran constantly, how many would be needed?
          • However, having an ion drive running continuously might play havoc with some experiments that are trying to do things like measure solar wind. Might also mess up micro-gravity experiments.
          • You are correct that large-force short-duration burns are not the only way to perform stationkeeping. I suspect that there are 3 reasons that ion propulsion has not been mentioned for the ISS:

            (1) Ion propulsion was not mature when the ISS was being designed, so it wasn't included in the station design.

            (2) While XIPS engines are used for stationkeeping GEO based comm satellites, the perturbing forces on LEO based space station like ISS are likely to be much larger. While I haven't done the calculations, I'd bet that means you would need a lot of XIPS engines - each one sucking down 4.5kW of power. Power is probably at a premium on the ISS, since they still don't have a whole lot of solar array area up there (and increasing the solar array area is likely to increase the drag force you are trying to counteract with your XIPS).

            (3) Ion engines tend to produce a much less focused thruster plume than a chemical thruster. If your are constantly firing lots of thrusters that have unfocused plumes, you're going to end up with a big cloud of Xenon all around the station. It's likely to interfere with experiments and observations, and , and generally get in the way.

            • GileadGreene said:

              You are correct that large-force short-duration burns are not the only way to perform stationkeeping. I suspect that there are 3 reasons that ion propulsion has not been mentioned for the ISS:

              (1) Ion propulsion was not mature when the ISS was being designed, so it wasn't included in the station design.

              Good point. I imagine it would be pretty easy to add them on after the fact, but the people running the project likely have plenty of other problems to worry about besides replacing a system that already does an acceptable job (the current stationkeeping method).

              (2) While XIPS engines are used for stationkeeping GEO based comm satellites, the perturbing forces on LEO based space station like ISS are likely to be much larger. While I haven't done the calculations, I'd bet that means you would need a lot of XIPS engines - each one sucking down 4.5kW of power. Power is probably at a premium on the ISS, since they still don't have a whole lot of solar array area up there (and increasing the solar array area is likely to increase the drag force you are trying to counteract with your XIPS).

              After making my previous post I did some rough calculations and came to the following conclusions:

              At the station's current mass (~120 Mg), about 3 continuously-firing 165 mN XIPS thrusters, at a combined power requirement of 13.5 kW, would be required to keep ISS in its orbit. At its completed mass (~450 Mg) about 10 would be required, using a total of 45 kW. That comes to 40% of the station's total energy budget of 110 kW (I'm not sure if that 110 kW is for the current or completed station though).

              In other words, you wouldn't need many of the motors, but they'd suck all of your power, so they're not a viable solution for ISS as designed.

              (3) Ion engines tend to produce a much less focused thruster plume than a chemical thruster. If your are constantly firing lots of thrusters that have unfocused plumes, you're going to end up with a big cloud of Xenon all around the station. It's likely to interfere with experiments and observations, and , and generally get in the way.

              My guess is that because the xenon exhaust is being launched into a lower-energy orbit than the station it would combine with the rest of the atmosphere, and wouldn't cause a problem. The electric field from the motors might cause problems with experiments, but I don't know enough about either to say for sure.

              A previous post mentioned problems with microgravity experiments. Using XIPS for stationkeeping could actually be better for such experiments because it would remove the tiny acceleration due to atmospheric drag.

              • I imagine it would be pretty easy to add them on after the fact, but the people running the project likely have plenty of other problems to worry about besides replacing a system that already does an acceptable job (the current stationkeeping method).

                As you say, the ISS has plenty of issues to worry about. Many of them are system integration issues (getting all sorts of parts from different contractors to work well together). Adding an unplanned-for component to the mix is a recipe for schedule and cost disaster. There're likely to be structural issues with mounting the XIPS engines, and all sorts of exciting issues with routing command lines and power supplies. Not something you want to do to a project that's already $4B in the hole.

                At the station's current mass (~120 Mg), about 3 continuously-firing 165 mN XIPS thrusters, at a combined power requirement of 13.5 kW, would be required to keep ISS in its orbit. At its completed mass (~450 Mg) about 10 would be required, using a total of 45 kW.

                In other words, you wouldn't need many of the motors, but they'd suck all of your power, so they're not a viable solution for ISS as designed.

                Not only that, but a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation gives me ~2 tons/year of propellant to supply 10 XIPS thrusters. That's a lot of Xenon to ship to orbit. Not that chemical propellants would be any less massive if you were using them to keep the ISS fixed in place. They're projecting ~6 tons/year for the present system.

                Perhaps a better choice would be something that doesn't use any propellant - like an electrodynamic tether (see e.g. this [nasa.gov])

                My guess is that because the xenon exhaust is being launched into a lower-energy orbit than the station it would combine with the rest of the atmosphere, and wouldn't cause a problem. The electric field from the motors might cause problems with experiments, but I don't know enough about either to say for sure.

                A chemical rocket you just point away from anything you don't want to hit, and you're fine since the rocket makes a relatively well directed jet of hot gas. An ion engine produces more of a cloud than a jet, so surfaces well off the thrust line are in danger of contamination. Xenon is more than likely going to impinge on many of the ISS surfaces and experiments, simply because the plume goes everywhere.

                • Xenon is more than likely going to impinge on many of the ISS surfaces and experiments, simply because the plume goes everywhere.

                  I thought the Xe is expelled at 100000 km/s from the drive, how can it form a plume around the station then? To make a focused plume just collimate it.

                  As Zaak suggested the continuous operation of a ion engine would not only remove (or reduce) the tiny acceleration caused by atmospheric drag but also the interruption of microgravity experiments due to periodic reboosts.

    • The ion drive aboard the DS1 broke several records with its stellar (literally) tortiose-vs-hare performance. Does anyone know if this technology has any potential for being adapted to the ISS?

      I don't think ion propulsion is being considered for ISS right now, although it is being used for stationkeeping thrusters on a number of satellites (the XIPS [hsc.com] system was developed by the former Hughes Space & Communications, now Boeing Satellite Systems, for commercial communications satellites.) The European Space Agency's Artemis experimental communications satellite is also using ion propulsion [estec.esa.nl] to adjust its orbit, after its Ariane 5 launcher malfunctioned and placed it in the wrong orbit.

    • As stated in other replies, the power necessary to run sufficient ion engines constantly would be too great a drain, however, there are other types of electric propulsion in the works that provide more thrust and could be used intermittantly. The PPM (Pulse Plasma Manifold) drive seem promising, especially if they get it to run on water as they are currently trying.

  • StarTrek thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LoudMusic ( 199347 )
    I admit, this is offtopic, but while I'm thinking about it ...

    Ok, Voyager (as in NASA's probe) was brought up (ok it was the focus) in one of the ST movies, but planet launched space probes from other species aren't really ever talked about in StarTrek. Why was warp drive the deciding factor for first contact? Why not "hey they shot a probe hundreds of millions of light years away from their planet, and they're still gathering information from it!"?

    I mean, what if Voyager sends us back a picture of something living on another planet? "Hello, we know you're there and we're coming after you." Seems like a good reason to go talk to the people responsible for the craft.

    ~LoudMusic
    • In the time that has elapsed between now and the start of the Star Trek continuity, Voyager will travel a significant fraction of the distance to Centauri. Perhaps in a few million years, it will be noticed (and we're not even considering the probability that Voyager's path actually intersects anything interesting. Space is big.).
    • In Star Trek One, The Motion Picture - I believe the V'Ger probe was 'Voyager 7' or somesuch, which was wormholed to an advanced sentient AI race and 'returned home' looking for it's maker.

      Also, there was a TOS episode about a 'Nomad' probe with much the same plot.
  • I can't believe they'd spend all tha money on a research project and just send it into the sun. Am I the only one who thinks maybe something like this belongs in a museum? It's not like we don't have shuttles in orbit right now. They've gotta have some room in the trunk.
    • Maybe because it's extremely expensive to transport something from space down to earth?
      • Could be. But I recall there being shuttles up there currently, anyway. And wouldn't the extra income from museum ticket sales help defray the cost of the downward transportation. And in the very least, depending on the size of the probe, they could use it to help puch the station away from the earth. Anything beats just throwing it into the sun.
        • The problem is, the ion drive isn't designed for orbital manuvering. It's thrust is very weak, and takes a while to make any course adjustments. Getting it into orbit around earth might be possible, but getting it into a stable low orbit so that the shuttle could pick it up would be a long, tedious (and expensive) process.

          Also, shuttles up there currently have nothing to do with it, since it would take quite a while for it to get back to earth anyway.

          Of course I'm just talking out of my ass, so ignore me if I'm completely wrong.

  • Breech of Contract (Score:3, Funny)

    by Netw0rkAssh0liates ( 544345 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @02:14AM (#2713672) Homepage
    Hello deepspacecraft@nasa.gov,

    It has come to our most desirable attention that your spacecraft is utilizing our most powerful communication technology across our networks and your service cost has yet to be reviewed. If you are aware of your contract with Network Associates, please contact our esteemed financial assistant to discuss a better suited payment plan for your financial situation or discontinue using our service. Failing to comply with this notice will result in repossesion of our property and your property shall be placed under lien. Your space vehicle is currently outside our solar system and upon reentry to Earth's atmosphere we will seize its use until we, Network Associates, has been accounted. Thankyou.

    -Bob Gulson

  • It had all sorts of problems, the AI was bugged and the digital camera ended up being oriented away from the asteroid it was suppose to fly by and take pictures. But I think it is cool how they had to patch the software on Earth and wait a few minutes/hours before the upload was complete and waited more to get results. That would be too much down time for me.

  • Reflections on a successful mission (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ethidium ( 105493 ) <chia_tek@@@yahoo...com> on Monday December 17, 2001 @02:38AM (#2713726) Homepage Journal
    When DS 1 launched in 1998, I was in my junior year of high school, and taking physics, which is now one of my three undergraduate majors. There was a girl in my class whose mother is a JPL scientist, and she and I would always spend our lab times talking about the mission. I remember reading that the ion engine created only as much force as a sheet of paper exerts on the hand of the person holding it, and wondered how in the world they expected anything to come of this. But F = ma, and in space there is practically no friction, so with the hours-long burns that the team discovered they could do, the acceleration added up. (For those of you who have asked, the ion engine is just another Newton's-third-law technology, with the big nuance being that rather than relying on the expansion of hot gases from the burning of fuel to provide the counter-force, the spacecraft uses an electified grid to propel tiny charged ions out the back).

    When the star tracker failed in 1999, I wept, for I was sure that the mission was doomed. When the ground crew, in a long stroke of genius, kept it going, I wept for joy.

    In the past year and a half or so, DS 1 hasn't been doing so much. WIth most of its objectives achieved, the mission became largely a test of how long it would last. Nevertheless, it was always fun to read Dr. Marc Rayman's mission logs [nasa.gov], "widely thought of and commonly spoken of in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy as the most reliable source of information on this bold mission of exploration."

    This fall, the probe paid a visit to comet Borrelley. Nobody knew where in the tail the rock itself was, but DS 1's job was to get as close to it as possible, and send back pictures. Nobody expected it to work. If anything, this was supposed to be a dignified death for the bird, which the September 9 log [nasa.gov] referred to as being "kept flying with duct tape and good wishes." The chances that the probe would do anything but smash into the comet and die, or be pommeled to death by the microdust in the coma, were astronomically slim. But somehow, miraculously, it survived, and with the pictures to prove it.

    DS 1 was the stuff of science fiction, and that so many things went right is simply amazing. While I , like Dr. Rayman, am happy that it lived so long, I think we are all somewhat sad to see it go. But we can be consoled by the fact that the funding, the DSN time, the space, and the positively brilliant staff that have kept DS 1 running will now move on to projects that have even more excitement and adventure to offer us, and science will march on, at a steadily accelerating tempo.

    • The ion engine is just another Newton's-third-law technology, with the big nuance being that rather than relying on the expansion of hot gases from the burning of fuel to provide the counter-force, the spacecraft uses an electified grid to propel tiny charged ions out the back

      Some mail order electronics/science catalogs used to sell little Van Der Graff static generators (you know, the shiny metal ball on a column with a rubber band running up and down) as "Atom Smasher! Demonstrate Ion Space Propulsion!!" (this was about early 1970's, Lafayette catalog) and the ion drive was the ancient static electricity "whirygig" trick, put an 'S' shaped wire with pointed ends on top balanced on a bearing, fire up the generator and it spins from the corona discharge streaming off the pointed ends. However, scaled up to industrial military space size it could be what gets people up to near warp speed some time in the not so distant future.

  • Suitable mission end (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JimPooley ( 150814 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:44AM (#2713824) Homepage
    They should point it out of the solar system and turn the ion drive on. Just let it go...
    • I agree with you fully - that would be a great idea, and a fitting end. Unfortunately, the ion drive runs on solar power, which is essentially useless much past the asteroid belt. There is also the issue of limited fuel: while the drive is very efficient, it still requires fuel to push out the back, and that is a finite resource which is probably almost gone - especially after so many mission extensions.

  • Let's hear it for level heads... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Slur ( 61510 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @04:41AM (#2713893) Homepage Journal
    ... prevailing to end this foolish mission. The folly of scientists never ceases to amaze me. Deep Space One, like Voyager 1 and 2 before it, will only be captured by one of a thousand nearby hostile alien civilizations, injected with mind-altering nano-spores and sent back to Earth. I pray this day never comes, but if it does it will herald a new awareness, just as the events of September 11 did. Scientists won't be able to hide in their committee chambers as they and the rest of the human race find themselves being consumed by the alien spores. They've already ignored this danger for far too long.

    I for one am relieved to see funding going towards someplace where it's really needed for a change: to the essential and forward-thinking Laser Missile Defense Shield. You don't have to be a master of Redneck Rampage to see to smell the coffee burning. When the godless aliens arrive we need to be ready. We need to be prepared in every way to lase them into vapor before they possess the minds of our brothers and sisters and poison them against our deeply held moral values.

    The laser defense is important, but I believe we must think even further if we are to survive.

    Now that funding is going where it should scientists and engineers can devote their talented minds to things that really matter. What moral citizen hasn't dreamt of a day when the American People can stand united and secure beneath a neural-net controlled translucent bubble of ozone-infused anti-missile shielding? Agencies like NASA and programs like the Berkeley peacenik SETI "we want a big cosmic hug from E.T." project need to be exposed for the foolish wastes they are. The death of Deep Space One heralds the beginning of a new age of enlightened defensive spending.

    I know that deep down beneath the part of you that hates humanity - those vile creatures who always taunt and belittle your superior intellects - Slashdotters care. I know when faced with the choice between a spore-infested world of android replicants and a utopian world where we can roam freely in a bio-dome safe from our enemies you'll make the wisest choice.

  • Welcome to the New NASA... (Score:4, Informative)

    by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @05:35AM (#2713965)
    All set up to go by an asteroid but can't spring for the required sliver of incremental funding? Welcome to the new NASA. From a recent newspaper article (I think Houston Chronicle):

    ""...No one really knows what a finished station would cost. NASA said earlier this year that it faces a $4.8 billion shortfall over the next five years. Sean O'Keefe, nominated by President George W. Bush to become NASA administrator, testified Friday that he had no confidence in that number or any other estimate he had heard so far.
    At the close of the hearing Friday, Mr. O'Keefe was asked an open-ended question: "What is your vision?"
    .
    Mr. O'Keefe spoke for several minutes about "prudent management principles," reinvigorating "the entrepreneurial spirits" of NASA, the importance of collaboration with other elements of the federal government, the need to be mindful of safety and the possibility of taking advantage of this moment when NASA is at a crossroads.
    .
    He did not mention space."
    • Another article, from the Observer News Service, by Robin McKie, Titled "NASA mulls ways to move earth," may shed some light on where the funding is going:

      it outlines how, in order to prevent/cease global warming, "a group of NASA engineers and American astronomers" are planning on altering the earth's orbit in favor of a "safer, colder part of the solar system."

      Techniques for said plan include "carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth."

      the aforementioned engineers and astronomers do realize that "there is also the vexed question of the moon." which, apparently, would most likely be "stripped away from Earth...radically upsetting our planet's climate."

      hmmmmmm....don't you love self defeating plans?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close